|
On May 03 2013 21:50 NicolBolas 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:
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? 1) 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. 2) 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 you would need to 3) 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.
1) I was rephrasing what I was arguing, stop trying to bite my nuts over nothing please.
2) If the argument was "are women happier with families compared to men" then maybe.
3) Yes I am aware that finding a study measuring happiness is going to be sketchy at best. This argument has nothing to do with men, using them for a control would be pointless.
Feel free to post sources and peer reviewed articles yourself about how female happiness isn't connected to whether or not they have children.
|
On May 03 2013 21:51 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:46 zbedlam wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
lmao, read edit. I was just messing with you.
|
You edited after I posted, scoundrel you.
|
On May 03 2013 22:02 McBengt wrote:
You edited after I posted, scoundrel you.
sorry, googled maternal instinct and couldn't resist since you did ask for anything xD
|
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really??
|
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+ Show Spoiler +
the spoilered article is from 1916.
A third bugaboo is that if a child is reared alone, without brothers and sisters, he will grow up selfish, egoistic, and an undesirable citizen. Figures are, however, so far lacking to show the disastrous consequences of being an only child.
nobody needs to prove you wrong, you're doing that yourself, you bugaboo.
|
"if jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism."
The problem with this statement is that everyone on the internet can be anonymous. No one has to know you're sex/race/religion/nationality/orientation. You have the option to withhold this information and you are the one who volunteers it. A lot of people in RL get away with things because of what they are, not who they are. How many women will preach equality but expect the guy to pick up the tab? How many will avoid manual labor simply because they're a girl, and there are men around? How many people hide behind their religion as a reason to treat people unfairly? How many black americans use slurs constantly but will get offended if a white guy says it?
The problem is that on the internet you are drawing a line where one doesn't have to exist. People want the advantages they are used to getting in real life, but not the same burdens as everyone else.
While there is legitimacy to the complaint of how people act in general on the internet, I call B.S. on 99% of the people making the complaints. They don't actually want to be judged by the content of their character, they want the same free passes they get in RL.
I hope someday more people can better learn to control their impulses, and truly judge people by their character alone. That's not going to happen, so we'd all be better off if we stopped pretending we don't judge people based on superficial things. We have our differences, let's just accept them and move on. But if you are willing to use the advantages you get in life because of what you are, don't whine about the negatives. If you do, you're a Hippocratic.
|
On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really??
I had someone try to refute me by posting an article from creationstudies.org in a debate about cosmology once. Was a good five minutes before I could regain normal respiratory functions.
|
On May 03 2013 21:33 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:14 Xaddy wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:14 Xaddy wrote: 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.
No I did not watch the video. It is not proof of anything, because it is not science. Even the interviewees are subjected to selection bias by the interviewer, and it also carries a lot of confirmation bias. But I'll indulge anyway.
Evolutionary biologists commenting on this topic are not commenting on evolutionary biology, they're commenting on evolutionary psychology (psychology being the study of behaviour). Granted, psychology does have a little bit to do with biology, but still the field of study is behaviour. Naturally they will be more inclined to find a biological explanation to any phenomenon, especially psychological phenomenon which already lends itself to accept biology.
If you think the tools evolutionary biologists use are in any way similar to the tools a microbiologist uses just because they're "natural sciences" you're wrong. Evolutionary biology is based on reasoning and logic, using examples from today to explain yesterday inductively. In that way, they're tools are a lot more like the "unnatural sciences" or whatever you want to call them. They're not necessarily wrong, because we cannot ever study the phenomenon firsthand, since we weren't there.
But the core of the matter is 1) that they're looking at norms (wide spread behaviours) today and explain them by assuming the norms were the same way-back-when. And after supposing this 2) they claim that it must be biological in nature. Both of these are not very good science. I have read papers by evolutionary psychologists, they're pretty suppositional. I accept that they are, in that particular field they have to be. But that is also why some people don't take the discipline very seriously. Sociology and social-constructivism is simply a much more parsimonious and generalizable explanation.
|
On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really??
Provide something better.
Off you go ol chap
You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
off-topic 
|
On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years?
Women? No.
Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes.
|
On May 03 2013 22:09 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years? Women? No. Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes.
Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies?
All you gotta do is backup that society doesn't want women to have babies and you are gold.
(You should totally find me a peer reviewed article backing up your claim or it is just unfounded opinion)
|
On May 03 2013 22:18 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:09 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years? Women? No. Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes. Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies? All you gotta do is backup that society doesn't want women to have babies and you are gold.
I give up. Like pouring water on a goose.
|
On May 03 2013 22:20 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:18 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:09 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years? Women? No. Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes. Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies? All you gotta do is backup that society doesn't want women to have babies and you are gold. I give up. Like pouring water on a goose.
Gimme dat article?
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On May 03 2013 22:07 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? I had someone try to refute me by posting an article from creationstudies.org in a debate about cosmology once. Was a good five minutes before I could regain normal respiratory functions.
I just want to check we're on the same page - you were stunned by its accuracy and scientific method, and it took you time to recover from seeing something so rigirously brilliant and patently true?
|
On May 03 2013 22:31 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:20 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:18 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:09 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years? Women? No. Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes. Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies? All you gotta do is backup that society doesn't want women to have babies and you are gold. I give up. Like pouring water on a goose. Gimme dat article?
What article? What are you talking about? Arguing with you is one of the most surreal and bizarre experiences I've ever had on the internet. You respond to things I haven't said, invent points I haven't made.
"Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies"
Where did that come from? What on earth are you on about? Is there an alternative universe I am not privy to where another me is posting stuff that this me is unaware of?
What in my posts could possibly have led you to draw the conclusion that I think science makes women not have babies? My point was that social studies and attitudes towards women have evolved quite a bit since 196, as has science and our way of looking at things like reproduction and traditional gender roles.
You are one of the most thoroughly confusing individuals I've ever come across.
I just want to check we're on the same page - you were stunned by its accuracy and scientific method, and it took you time to recover from seeing something so rigirously brilliant and patently true?
Well obviously, duh.
|
On May 03 2013 22:31 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 22:20 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:18 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:09 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 22:07 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 22:04 achan1058 wrote:
I am going to laugh so hard at the following response. A paper from 1916, really?? Provide something better. Off you go ol chap You think women have evolved into a different species in a hundred years? Women? No. Social attitudes, science, common sense? Yes. Science and common sense leads to women not wanting babies? All you gotta do is backup that society doesn't want women to have babies and you are gold. I give up. Like pouring water on a goose. Gimme dat article?
Man I'm surprised people haven't given up on arguing with you yet. From what I've gathered from your back and forth you're trying to argue the position that women who procreate are in general happier than those who don't. Even is we allow this to be true...so what? What does that have to do with this discussion? You're going to have to bring it all back together for me. Are you arguing that we shouldn't respect women's right to have an equal opportunity in the workplace, because if we disenfranchise them and pressure them into abandoning their career for having children they'll be happier for it? Basically like a "they just don't know what's good for 'em." argument?
|
The thing about trolls is that they get bored. But on the internet there is an endless stream of trolls that come and go and unfortunately there will always be trolls. When the amount of support you get from the community outnumbers the trolls then you start feeling good I guess. I have no idea who she is.
|
On May 03 2013 22:44 Mondieu wrote:
The thing about trolls is that they get bored. But on the internet there is an endless stream of trolls that come and go and unfortunately there will always be trolls. When the amount of support you get from the community outnumbers the trolls then you start feeling good I guess. I have no idea who she is.
It doesn't matter who she is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
