|
On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingShow nested quote +Nursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind.
That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/
|
On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it.
Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will.
Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then.
If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple.
|
On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingShow nested quote +Nursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind.
Did you acutally read his post or are you just throwing out articles when you didnt even understand the meaning of his post?
|
On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/
I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet.
|
On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children.
Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple.
Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles?
On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet.
Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that?
He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa.
|
On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet.
I don't spend any effort. I just ignore it, because I understand the overall point being made.
|
On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet.
You "invalidated" an example he made to explain something else. You didn't talk about his main point.
And your evidence comes from times when a lot of women were housewives.
|
On June 27 2013 10:40 arsonist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:33 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:12 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:07 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:03 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. Interesting. Source? Certain truths cannot be garnered from any study. ... lol. This "truth", then, is only your opinion, and your opinion (alone) should not shape policies that determine the lives of other individuals who have their own "truths" and opinions that differ from yours, but are backed up with, you know, social science. Every one lives according to a certain worldview. Even to accept scientific conclusions, you have to assert a certain measure of faith (i.e. that natural laws are consistent throughout time and that you can rely on your own conscious experience to verify what you measure in the natural world). I am not stating anything new here. That you can only learn certain things from your dad and certain things from you mom is not something you can reproduce in a lab. Human relationships and feelings transcend science. Some one's opinion has to prevail, since the children in homosexual families do not have a voice of their own before they are placed into them. Right, someone's opinion does have to prevail, and on the one hand you have an opinion backed by evidence-based science, and on the other you have an opinion and "this is how I think things should be." What do opinions and science have to do with each other? If science can say something about an issue, then it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. And things which are not subject to facts, such as a person's values or morality, cannot be influenced by evidence. I believe (as in, it is my opinion) that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents. This opinion is formed, and supported, by evidence-based science. His opinion is that heterosexual parents are superior to homosexual parents. His opinion is formed by his personal values and morality. My point is, on which would we prefer to base public policy? The values and morality of individuals, which vary widely, or on evidence-based science? I'll go with science, personally. Even when science can say something about an issue, it isn't necessarily accepted as fact - if it were, this entire discussion would be unnecessary. Clearly, some people choose to ignore science and instead are informed by their faith, etc.
If a question can be investigated using the scientific method, by all means pursue it. However, the claim that children (the natural product of a father and mother) ought to be raised by homosexual couples cannot be verified scientifically, since homosexuality involves a moral dimension.
|
there were rainbows everywhere here today in san francisco, people celebrating.
|
On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa.
How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue.
|
Fine, I'll expand.
His point is based upon relatively recently developed gender norms. My argument is that gender norms have largely gained a common convergence point recently. Any argument for biologically based gender norms falls pretty flat when you take a look at women in different societies. Have women been traditionally dominated by men? Yes. There are other cultures that worked under matriarchal principles and did just fine.
The fact is that you can't just say that women are more people oriented or that men are universally better at smashing things because we are almost universally trained into accepting these gender roles in the first place.
|
On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingShow nested quote +Nursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind.
"Nurses are traditionally and predominantly female; of the 2.1 million registered nurses in the United States, for example, only 6.6% are men. Men also make up only 13% of all new nursing students."
....
Feel free to keep looking into the topic. It's similar to how introducing benefits to female engineering students raises the rate for a while and then it drops back to the old values. Finding one single exception in the entire history of the US doesn't really change the general point.
|
On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman.
I don't get your argument at all. ... I completely agree with you children are the product of a man and a woman but just because a man and a woman are able to have sex with each other doesn't mean they are good parents or even in any way fit to bring up a kid... What argument is that? A good family environment for a child isn't magically created just because there is a man and a woman involved.
Also your imply that "natural" is always something positive or the best way to go which is just laughable... yes the biological prerequisite for creating a child is dna from a man and a woman but that says absolutely nothing, nothing about the best/optimal way to bring up a child.
You don't have the biological prerequisite to fly (wings), is it unnatural for human beings to fly? Maybe, but it gets me a lot faster from a to b than "natural walking". And if you say 1000times it is natural, you still aren't saying anything about quality. Fun fact for you: in Austria every third (!) woman has expirienced physical violence by a man and guess where that violence took place in over 90% of the cases: in your natural families. (lucky you don't believe in facts and science)
|
On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:
[quote]
Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa. How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue.
How do you know for a fact that it is not the case?How do you know it is JUST forced gender roles. You dont know ergo means my point is at LEAST as valid as yours.
On June 27 2013 10:57 Jormundr wrote:
Fine, I'll expand.
His point is based upon relatively recently developed gender norms. My argument is that gender norms have largely gained a common convergence point recently. Any argument for biologically based gender norms falls pretty flat when you take a look at women in different societies. Have women been traditionally dominated by men? Yes. There are other cultures that worked under matriarchal principles and did just fine.
The fact is that you can't just say that women are more people oriented or that men are universally better at smashing things because we are almost universally trained into accepting these gender roles in the first place.
How do you know it is not a mixture of biology and gender roles caused by society?
And even if i cant prove it 100% you cant neither.
Means i can assume there are differences caused by biology in men and women without being a sexist. You can assume otherwise if you want to, that doesnt make me a sexist if i dont agree.
|
On June 27 2013 10:51 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:40 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:12 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:07 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:03 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. Interesting. Source? Certain truths cannot be garnered from any study. ... lol. This "truth", then, is only your opinion, and your opinion (alone) should not shape policies that determine the lives of other individuals who have their own "truths" and opinions that differ from yours, but are backed up with, you know, social science. Every one lives according to a certain worldview. Even to accept scientific conclusions, you have to assert a certain measure of faith (i.e. that natural laws are consistent throughout time and that you can rely on your own conscious experience to verify what you measure in the natural world). I am not stating anything new here. That you can only learn certain things from your dad and certain things from you mom is not something you can reproduce in a lab. Human relationships and feelings transcend science. Some one's opinion has to prevail, since the children in homosexual families do not have a voice of their own before they are placed into them. Right, someone's opinion does have to prevail, and on the one hand you have an opinion backed by evidence-based science, and on the other you have an opinion and "this is how I think things should be." What do opinions and science have to do with each other? If science can say something about an issue, then it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. And things which are not subject to facts, such as a person's values or morality, cannot be influenced by evidence. I believe (as in, it is my opinion) that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents. This opinion is formed, and supported, by evidence-based science. His opinion is that heterosexual parents are superior to homosexual parents. His opinion is formed by his personal values and morality. My point is, on which would we prefer to base public policy? The values and morality of individuals, which vary widely, or on evidence-based science? I'll go with science, personally. Even when science can say something about an issue, it isn't necessarily accepted as fact - if it were, this entire discussion would be unnecessary. Clearly, some people choose to ignore science and instead are informed by their faith, etc. If a question can be investigated using the scientific method, by all means pursue it. However, the claim that children (the natural product of a father and mother) ought to be raised by homosexual couples cannot be verified scientifically, since homosexuality involves a moral dimension.
Where the hell is the moral dimension of homosexuality? Do enlighten us.
|
On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:
[quote]
Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa. How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue.
We know that some of the difference is biological, mainly because of sexual hormone.
But I don't think we can say gender role are universal or innate, because they are never strict. Childbirth does have a big influence though.
|
On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:
[quote]
Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa. How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue.
Claim: "Men wear trousers and women wear skirts"
Do a study on what people wear in which cultures and countries and you will find lots of cultures and countries where the claim is not true.
---> Most likely cultural.
Claim: "Men enjoy engineering subjects more than women"
Do a study on what people enjoy across cultures and countries and you will find no single country where the claim isn't correct.
---> Most likely biological.
|
On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist?
The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa. How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue. How do you know for a fact that it is not the case?How do you know it is JUST forced gender roles. You dont know ergo means my point is at LEAST as valid as yours.
Okay, so we don't know which is correct. However doing things your way risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that will end up greatly restricting the options available to men and women, whereas doing things my way has no such risks.
|
On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:40 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist?
The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period. No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures". Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit. No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact. But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it. Actually even saying that men are generally better at XY and women are generally better at AB does create pressure on men and women to fit into roles. Even if YOU don't push men and women towards these roles, other people will. Also, I didn't see a mod-note at the top of the thread saying that I couldn't pull the gender card. I'm sorry that you don't like talking about sexism, but hey, we all have to deal with topics we don't like every now and then. If I feel the gender card is called for, then I will be pulling it out. It's that simple. Let ust just assume the statement i made is true (just assume) so it is wrong to say it since it is a fact but you cannot say it since it creates pressure towards women and men towards these roles? On June 27 2013 10:46 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 10:44 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursingNursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind. That's such an obnoxiously cheap way to post man :/ I don't spend much effort when someone posts something that can be invalidated by 8 seconds of searching on the internet. Acutally you didnt invalid it because you didnt get what you said in teh first place. All you showed was a article that says 50% of the nurses were men at that time. Mb they didnt have a job and had to do it? Ever thought about that? He was talking about a global resarch showing that in no country the gender roles are switched up and vice versa. How do you know for a fact that the differences that appear between men and women are caused by biology and not by forced gender roles? The fact is that if you take that stance then benevolent sexism creates results that confirm benevolent sexism and allow it to continue. Claim: "Men wear trousers and women wear skirts" Do a study on what people wear in which cultures and countries and you will find lots of cultures and countries where the claim is not true. ---> Most likely cultural. Claim: "Men enjoy engineering subjects more than women" Do a study on what people enjoy across cultures and countries and you will find no single country where the claim isn't correct. ---> Most likely biological.
Confounding variable: What the different sexes are taught is normative.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 27 2013 08:49 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:52 salle wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other  I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let's take a look at article 1 point 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. I don't think that leaves much room for what should and shouldn't be a right. Unless you want to try and argue that it semantically means it must be one man and one woman. Something this statement doesn't point out, nor does it point out that it is only 2 people. And what is to say a same sex couple is not a family unit, lesbians can (and do) have biological children. Two men can adopt, just like infertile heterosexual couples can. These laws would help protect those family units better. Something they should be granted by the state, as stated in the previous quote from the UDHR. This article does not address gay marriage. Your view of a family is different from mine. I believe every child deserves a father and mother, and it is those families that I want my government to support.
It addresses all kinds of marriage though. And it does not exclude gay marriage as you should have gathered from reading it.
Also whether you believe your government should or shouldn't do something has no impact on if it's morally acceptable or morally abhorrent.
And sure perhaps it is better for a child to grow up in a home with a mother and father, but that won't always be the case even if it is so for a majority of the cases, abusive homes are not better than homes with just a single parent.
If you read up on child psychology and look for things like the lack of positive male role models for children of single moms you will find that the children find other men to mold themselves after (and women, since most traits are universal and not gender based).
The best thing for a child is to be brought up with respect, love, and care. That's it.
But I do find it is scary that you wish for your government to stop supporting single parents too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
