|
On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it.
Appeal to Authority is never a valid form of argument, and that goes doubly when the "authority" is some slagheap "science" like sociology. It's a field of "science" where someone like John Money still has a lot of proponents, that violator of little boys, that despicable killer. It's a field of "science" where the misuse and misrepresentations of statistics has become an art form. But indeed, study it, everyone, I urge you. Learn more by all means! All sane people should quickly realize that facts and objectivity is almost universally lacking in most areas that fall under the auspices of these quacks.
|
On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it.
Thing is buddy, while I completely agree with you and everything you say about sociology...the burden is on you to steer the conversation in the right direction by providing a higher level of dialogue, using academic-level references and enlightening people. See the poster on this forum called 'eshlow'. If you get into an argument with him about dietary nutrition, you better bring your f***ing sources because he'll throw about 10 studies on your head before you can type 'dat metabolic fire'. Unfortunately you can't just say 'Pfff you morons are all wrong...I can't believe how wrong you are. Lots of people who are right and much more clever and mature than you disagree with what you're say' you actually have to substantiate it to have any credibility.
|
On May 03 2013 21:07 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. Nobody needs to do that. It already has been done: click.
That video is not science, and you know that too. Anyone can make propaganda for any cause.
Gender studies are no refined and well thought out science like physics. They are full of dogmatists.
Well, if someone ran around trying to disprove the theory of gravity and the physics tried to prove their theory to them, don't you think they'd sound dogmatic?
|
On May 03 2013 20:45 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:04 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 09:20 Djzapz wrote:On May 03 2013 08:53 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc.
Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc.
Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. The vast majority of 'feminists' today do not care about equality. Those who do/did aren't even involved in the current 'feminist' movement because they are busy living their lives in a relatively equal society (and yes, society today is relatively equal, in fact, it's almost favoring women at this point in quite a few areas). Those who claim themselves to be feminists today are busy proclaiming dumb shit like rape culture, the privileged male (mostly due to higher income), etc. etc. and yet totally ignore things like alimony, child custody, divorce, sexual and domestic violence against men, etc. etc. They proclaim that men have historically have had all the power, and continue to have all the power in society. It's a load of bullshit, and it gets annoying listening to it over and over again (especially in humanities classes, dear fucking god). In short, I don't have a problem with the origins of the feminism movement. They were really never about true equality (look at their historical records; they wanted privileges without obligations), but they didn't overextend their reach like modern feminism does. I wouldn't say "the vast majority" don't care about equality, but a good number of them don't, really. When you mentioned "rape culture" I really had this terrible feeling in my gut because I'm so tired of hearing about it. It's a terrible buzzword which serves no purpose other than getting women riled up over living in a society which, as we know, is full of bad people, and rape is one of the things that unfortunately happens. I don't know how many pictures (which probably originated on Tumblr) tried to justify the usage of the buzzword "rape culture" by citing examples of rape in society and statistics. Shit, a bunch of the concepts they bring up are true, so why do they insist on tying it to this buzzword which is just meant to make it even more scary and and widespread. How are sexy pictures of women in magazines part of rape culture anyway, why do they make that point at all? There are pictures of men with their super cut 6packs on other magazines and that's got nothing to do with rape though. Sigh. Anywho, I would call myself a feminist, sometimes I do, despite the fact that I'm a sucker for semantics and I would like for them to make some attempt to use neutral terms instead of buzzwords. Sadly, many women apparently think that men cannot be feminists, and the idea is that we've been meddling in their affairs forever, and now they want to lead their own movements, or whatever. Regardless, I think that we still have some work to do, and if we're gonna do it, hopefully we'll be able to ignore their crazies. It's a shame that so many people choose to have a fully black or white view of the issues that women face. No, a vast majority of MODERN and I do mean modern feminists don't give a flying fuck about equality. At all. They only want to empower the woman, and will degrade and insult the man at any given moment's notice. And when they are in deep shit in an argument, they utilize the cover of 'feminism' in order to cover their asses and say that we're all chauvinistic pigs or some bullshit like that. As various posters have stated, the whole concept of feminism right now is so warped from its original intent that it is stupid. Anyone that argues about rape culture, the privileged / patriarchal male, blah blah blah, is who I would consider one of those 'modern' feminists. And that's the form that most feminists fall under now adays, because they talk all this nonsense about how women work in hostile male dominated environments (false for the most part), how males make more money (true but not for the reasons the modern feminists say), how women still need all these 'empowering' privileges, etc. See, I wouldn't even call Kwark a 'feminist.' I'd call him a equal rights supporter that is gender neutral. Completely different from feminism (both modern and historical versions). On May 03 2013 12:56 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about. While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted. 1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this. 2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem. The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men. As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing. Feminists were abolitionists/supported abolitionists because it was convenient to them at the time, not because they truly believed in it. They kicked them to the curb when they didn't need them, just like how the feminist movement during the 1900s kicked everyone else to the curb when they didn't need them later on down the road. So can we get one of those 800 articles about modern feminism opposing equality or not?
Although there probably aren't any articles about it, given the nature of our modern-day society, it is not too much of a conspiracy-theorist-like to presume that feminists don't care about equality. In a hypothetical situation where the world turned into a female-favouring society and it is men getting the short end of the stick, i doubt those same feminists right now would give 2 shits about it. Self-preservation is the name of the game, most people will only act in their interests and righteous is usually abused to disguise their motives. And this may sound really dark and emo, but i can't express it any better than that.
|
On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Show nested quote +Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too.
I'm dumbfounded. What do those two statements have to do with one another? This is so absurd I am honestly confused. I have no idea what you are even trying to say anymore.
One is a statement on the quality of life of women who choose not to reproduce, a rather small minority, without any evidence or sources, just random assertions.
The other was a nonsensical response to something I didn't even say. Are you somehow extrapolating that I somehow claimed that the average woman does not want kids, from the statement that there are women who do not have children and are happy with that decision?
This is making my brain hurt.
|
On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Show nested quote +Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not.
So let me see if I've got this right.
Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist.
Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy.
If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy."
I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion.
There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all.
|
You're a little faggot OP
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 03 2013 21:17 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I'm dumbfounded. What do those two statements have to do with one another? This is so absurd I am honestly confused. I have no idea what you are even trying to say anymore. One is a statement on the quality of life of women who choose not to reproduce, a rather small minority, without any evidence or sources, just random assertions. The other was a nonsensical response to something I didn't even say. Are you somehow extrapolating that I somehow claimed that the average woman does not want kids, from the statement that there are women who do not have children and are happy with that decision? This is making my brain hurt.
Yes, but from this. Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. I am talking majorities here, I am well aware there are women in the world that do not want children and are happy with it; but they are a minority.
|
On May 03 2013 21:13 helvete wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. Appeal to Authority is never a valid form of argument, and that goes doubly when the "authority" is some slagheap "science" like sociology. It's a field of "science" where someone like John Money still has a lot of proponents, that violator of little boys, that despicable killer. It's a field of "science" where the misuse and misrepresentations of statistics has become an art form. But indeed, study it, everyone, I urge you. Learn more by all means! All sane people should quickly realize that facts and objectivity is almost universally lacking in most areas that fall under the auspices of these quacks.
My appeal to authority was not an attempt at making an argument, it was an appeal to authority. In the absence of first-hand knowledge you listen to someone who has first-hand knowledge. That is not a strange concept. Sure, it's not a way to find the truth of a topic, but it is how any reasonable human being lives a life of limited time (and in some cases limited intelligence).
You're just bashing gender studies without substantiation. I assume you like Pär Ström?
|
On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all.
True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; it stands to reason our species would not exist like it does today.
Women without children can live happy lives no doubt about it, but they will often replace the children they didn't have with something else - ie adoption, pets, younger family etc.
|
Yes, but from this. + Show Spoiler +Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. I am talking majorities here, I am well aware there are women in the world that do not want children and are happy with it; but they are a minority.
How does that sentence in any way make you think I made that claim!? What in the actual fuck?
|
On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all. True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't;
OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails.
People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life.
If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have.
So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't".
That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children.
|
On May 03 2013 21:14 Xaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:07 Hryul wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. Nobody needs to do that. It already has been done: click. That video is not science, and you know that too. Anyone can make propaganda for any cause.
Well, but he is interviewing scientists like evolutionary biologists. And they clearly state that the "gender scientists" are wrong. So the video is in fact citing science from the scientists themselfs.
On May 03 2013 21:14 Xaddy wrote:Show nested quote + Gender studies are no refined and well thought out science like physics. They are full of dogmatists. Well, if someone ran around trying to disprove the theory of gravity and the physics tried to prove their theory to them, don't you think they'd sound dogmatic?
I think you didn't watch the video(s). They don't sound dogmatic, they are dogmatic because they simply claim that evidence found by natural sciences is wrong without reason.
|
On May 03 2013 21:29 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all. True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails. People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life. If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have. So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't". That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children.
Temporary, perhaps reoccurring. Haven't seen enough childless mature women to make accurate judgement.
I do know they will often try to replace the child they didn't have with something else to sate their instinct to mother.
I do not assume that the females life terminates at successful or failed pregnancy at all, I am simply arguing that women who don't have children are in general less happy than those that do.
Another way to argue: Are women with a biological family that they made themselves (husband,wife,kids) in general happier than those that do not?
Adoption makes this argument somewhat more complex.
|
On May 03 2013 21:13 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. Thing is buddy, while I completely agree with you and everything you say about sociology...the burden is on you to steer the conversation in the right direction by providing a higher level of dialogue, using academic-level references and enlightening people. See the poster on this forum called 'eshlow'. If you get into an argument with him about dietary nutrition, you better bring your f***ing sources because he'll throw about 10 studies on your head before you can type 'dat metabolic fire'. Unfortunately you can't just say 'Pfff you morons are all wrong...I can't believe how wrong you are. Lots of people who are right and much more clever and mature than you disagree with what you're say' you actually have to substantiate it to have any credibility.
I have only studied gender studies in swedish, and sweden is one of the leading countries in this discipline so some of the best and most interesting studies are in swedish. So, I could give some reading tips, but that's just in swedish. If you are interested the Statistics Swedish (Statistiska Centralbyrån) has a biannual book on gendered statistics called "På tal om kvinnor och män" which includes almost all statistics used in gender equality debates in the country, it is really good, it has all kinds of statistics. It would require a severely delusional person to say the country is gender equal after reading it. And it is government funded and obligated to not offer any analysis of their statistics, you can draw your own conclusions.
|
On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:29 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all. True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails. People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life. If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have. So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't". That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children. Temporary, perhaps reoccurring. Haven't seen enough childless mature women to make accurate judgement. I do know they will often try to replace the child they didn't have with something else to sate their instinct to mother.
I do not assume that the females life terminates at successful or failed pregnancy at all, I am simply arguing that women who don't have children are in general less happy than those that do.Another way to argue: Are women with a biological family that they made themselves (husband,wife,kids) in general happier than those that do not? Adoption makes this argument somewhat more complex.
How do you know this? Give me anything, a source, a peer reviewed study, an article, a scribble on a piece of toilet paper, anything.
|
On May 03 2013 21:42 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:29 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all. True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails. People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life. If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have. So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't". That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children. Temporary, perhaps reoccurring. Haven't seen enough childless mature women to make accurate judgement. I do know they will often try to replace the child they didn't have with something else to sate their instinct to mother.
I do not assume that the females life terminates at successful or failed pregnancy at all, I am simply arguing that women who don't have children are in general less happy than those that do.Another way to argue: Are women with a biological family that they made themselves (husband,wife,kids) in general happier than those that do not? Adoption makes this argument somewhat more complex. How do you know this? Give me anything, a source, a peer reviewed study, an article, a scribble on a piece of toilet paper, anything.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maternal instincts
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:29 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:
True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails. People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life. If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have. So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't". That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children. Temporary, perhaps reoccurring. Haven't seen enough childless mature women to make accurate judgement.
What you've "seen" wouldn't matter. Your personal experience is irrelevant. In order to argue what you're wanting to argue, you need evidence, not supposition. Not what you've "seen". Evidence.
On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:
I do know they will often try to replace the child they didn't have with something else to sate their instinct to mother.
That's another unsubstantiated claim based, at best, on your own personal experiences.
On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:
I do not assume that the females life terminates at successful or failed pregnancy at all, I am simply arguing that women who don't have children are in general less happy than those that do.
Another way to argue: Are women with a biological family that they made themselves (husband,wife,kids) in general happier than those that do not?
First, that's not a "way to argue". That's not even an argument. That's a question. To answer it, you would need evidence. Which you do not have. Without which, you cannot make claims one way or another.
Second, let's say you do this study. And you get the results back. And the study says that women who have their own children, over the course of their lifetimes, are indeed happier than women who don't.
What would that mean? Nothing. Because at the end of the day, you haven't proven anything with that data point. To prove something, you would also need a similar study of men, and that study would need to say that men don't have similar predilections towards children and happiness.
Lastly, a study that is focused on such a nebulous quality like "happiness" is pretty much doomed from the start. It's way to easy for someone to pick it apart. There are also so many other qualities that could have affected happiness (how good their marriage was, etc) that you would need a pretty large sample size to get clear results of happiness based on children.
|
On May 03 2013 19:43 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 19:33 Flyingdutchman wrote:On May 03 2013 19:05 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 19:00 Flyingdutchman wrote:On May 03 2013 17:40 CYFAWS wrote:
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist A bit of an overreaction considering the majority of her test sample is 12 years old. And cut the 'our' civilisation crap, the civilisation your are living in is very fair to the female gender. So how does she account for the general amount of negativity present in online gaming interactions? I'm pretty sure most people that were mean to her are mean to everyone else, they just use her gender as a trolling mechanism. are you particularly convinced that the essential meaninglessness of the words used - sexism, racism, whatever it may be - would make people feel better about the real discrimination that does exist, where those trolls can just pull it up context-free for quick and easy emotional battery? you can say "man up (heh, topical), it's the internet" all you like, doesn't change that it's still offensive. Sure, but focusing on the sexism would leave out the underlying cause of the negative interaction. She could have been from outer space and still get negative reactions. I do think that the gender trigger for negativity is very powerful though, so she probably gets more negative reactions purely because she is female. But, in the end she has to deal with the same shit as gays and blacks, they all have the same underlying cause. And since when is being offensive a crime? It is not nice, but there are worse things that can happen to a person. If you can't deal with offensive behaviour then you might as well stop living because she is going to be offended a lot in her lifetime, and not always because she is female. You cannot change the information someone gives you, but you can change the way you interpret that information. So why waste effort in battling something you cannot change? Gay marriage is offensive to hardcore christians and muslims. Is this a case where the problem lies with the sender (homosexuals getting married) or the receiver of the offensive information? Your answer will primarily be driven by the group you share views with. what underlying cause, that people are willfully ignorant? that's a painfully relativist and reductive way to sum up persistent cultural problems that each have their own context and field of criticism/study. is consistency of negative behavior something you'd consider? I assure you the concept of overt racism towards black people at the very least has been forced into more latent forms if you're a total pessimist and assume the american civil rights movement didn't do much to change people's minds. it's the same thing with sexism and other instances of racism or discrimination; if people keep hammering away at it, you can get things done. I find it hard to look at any sort of history of the 20th century and conclude otherwise. to your actual question, it doesn't have to be a problem that personally affects the receiver to negatively inform and demoralize them about the society they live in. I can assure you, as a reasonably privileged white dude reading this thread that in essentially no way affects me, it's been plenty depressing. edit: "you might as well stop living"? that's pretty fucked...
People are ignorant, especially when they are young. Or do you believe that children are always nice to each other? Growing up is nothing more than one ongoing learning experience in social etiquette. Through education and upbringing they learn to avoid the pitfalls of their way of thinking. But that the way of thinking is ingrained in the chemistry that is our though processes is a no brainer. Her gender is the first thing they can observe, in order to determine that they are doing it purely to be sexist you would need to correct for their past posting history. Was this the first time they responded in a negative manner? When they only post negative remarks on videos made by females, yet other postings done by them or strictly positive in nature, then you could make a case that they are sexist.
Furthermore, when she uses data that is more representative of a society as a whole, and finds the same results, then we can talk about sexism or whatever. But when you have such a biased basis (videogames-->young males) there are other underlying causes that are more important, and the sexism is basically a result of co-correlation. What I'm trying to say is that you cannot judge these remarks she is getting on face value.
|
On May 03 2013 21:46 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:42 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:36 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:29 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:24 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:20 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:10 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right?
At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in.
[quote]
I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
[quote]
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too.
No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning. You even bolded it yourself. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. Your response: Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not. So let me see if I've got this right. Assertion: The average woman must want children, because if they didn't, the species would not exist. Therefore: The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy. If we accept the assertion (which has not been disputed, but also isn't strictly true) I don't see how we reach the conclusion from it. I'm guessing you think that, if people don't get what they want, they will "end up unhappy." I'm not really buying that. Yes, sometimes it's disappointing to not get what you want. But to assume that not getting this will be a prime determining factor in not being happy requires something more than just your assertion. There are women who are incapable of having children. And while they are usually disappointed by this (as most human beings do want to procreate), they do go on to have happy lives. Whether it's via adoption or by not having children at all. True, the assertion is debatable. However it is logical, happiness is one of the main things that motivates our behaviour. If women experienced no happiness if they had children, or flipside no unhappiness if they didn't; OK, stop right there. That right there is where your logic fails. People who want something are generally happy for getting it. And if you don't get what you want, you generally aren't happy about it. However, not getting what you want doesn't mean that you are forever unhappy with your life. If you want children and don't get them, you get over it. You will be unhappy for a while, but eventually most people accept it and move on with their lives. At which point, they can be happy with what they do have. So the "flipside" is not "no unhappiness if they didn't." It's "temporary unhappiness, then moving on if they didn't". That's why your conclusion fails. You assume that the woman's life terminates at the moment when she does or does not have children. Temporary, perhaps reoccurring. Haven't seen enough childless mature women to make accurate judgement. I do know they will often try to replace the child they didn't have with something else to sate their instinct to mother.
I do not assume that the females life terminates at successful or failed pregnancy at all, I am simply arguing that women who don't have children are in general less happy than those that do.Another way to argue: Are women with a biological family that they made themselves (husband,wife,kids) in general happier than those that do not? Adoption makes this argument somewhat more complex. How do you know this? Give me anything, a source, a peer reviewed study, an article, a scribble on a piece of toilet paper, anything. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maternal instincts
How droll.
Maternal instincts are not uniform, and not ubiquitous. They are contingent on specific hormonal ratios like every other emotion. They can be disrupted, dulled, almost erased in some cases. Some women are bound by statistical probability to be born with dampened maternal instincts.
That was not a source to support your claim, that was a definition of a term I am well familiar with. Try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
