|
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.
I would argue that the profession of engineering is the result of a patriarchal and capitalist society dominated by man.
|
On June 27 2013 11:04 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
.....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:
[quote]
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. I would argue that the profession of engineering is the result of a patriarchal and capitalist society dominated by man.
Damn you're good, Shodaa. That's what I've been trying to say. Why do I always fail miserably at turning the thoughts in my head into words?
|
On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
.....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:
[quote]
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.
It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that.
And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are refering to but the other way round.
So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. And therefore you dont have ANY reason at all to insult someone.
|
On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
.....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:
[quote]
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.
So how do you falsify this theory?
|
On June 27 2013 11:04 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
.....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:
[quote]
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. I would argue that the profession of engineering is the result of a patriarchal and capitalist society dominated by man.
I would argue that the scientifically well-proven difference between male and female brains also has some influence considering that males have exhibited a generally better spatial perception than females.
EDIT: I would also like out to point out there is a difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Equal opportunity can and does exist in many countries already. Forcing an equal outcome should self-explanatory be a terrible idea.
|
On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it.
Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like".
Edit: Seriously dude, saying that someone's statement was sexist isn't that much of an insult. Calm down, man 
|
On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. So how do you falsify this theory?
I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself.
|
On June 27 2013 11:10 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like".
OK lets just say if you dont have 50% women in each profession then something isnt treating women equal etc. Then you have to activly force some people to do something they dont want so you reach 50% in each profession. Because when you belive women and men are totally equal you have to expect 50%.
And then again it doesnt matter what you think is the best it is about what is true. And if you dont like the truth then dening it is not an option just because it sounds "bad".
And i tell you what i get offended by people that tell me everything i do is just socially constructed and we are all blank sheets. YOu just have to pull the right triggers in childhood and i become a completly different person. I have my on identity and they way i am is not just because society made me to be this but because i am that way because i m born this way.
This is a fucking dangerous idea saying that every human being is just a mass that you can mold the way you want to have it. We are not just a fucking mass that one can mold but we are individuales and everyone is differant in his or her own way.
And there are many studies that reject the idea of every person being a blank sheet that you can programm the way you want in sexuality, behaviour etc. But some peoeple like you think that is a very nice and romantic idea of mankind. Without thinking about it twice.
On June 27 2013 11:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. So how do you falsify this theory? I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself.
Nobody rejects the important role of society on the gender itself. Ofc it is not 100% it is rather 50 50.
|
On June 27 2013 11:09 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:04 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I would argue that the profession of engineering is the result of a patriarchal and capitalist society dominated by man. I would argue that the scientifically well-proven difference between male and female brains also has some influence considering that males have exhibited a generally better spatial perception than females.
Yes, I agree, because I wouldn't be transgender if they were no brain difference.
But is it enough to affect gender role ? And how much of these difference are nurture or nature ? Do men have better spatial perception because they are socially trained or because it is somewhat biological ? Or maybe both. A slight biological influence that is amplified by constructed social norm maybe ?
To be fair, I really don't know.
|
On June 27 2013 11:17 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:09 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 11:04 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I would argue that the profession of engineering is the result of a patriarchal and capitalist society dominated by man. I would argue that the scientifically well-proven difference between male and female brains also has some influence considering that males have exhibited a generally better spatial perception than females. A slight biological influence that is amplified by constructed social norm maybe ? To be fair, I really don't know.
That is what i belive, mb not slight but a fair amount that gets amplified by society.
|
On June 27 2013 11:17 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:10 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like". OK lets just say if you dont have 50% women in each profession then something isnt treating women equal etc. Then you have to activly force some people to do something they dont want so you reach 50% in each profession. Because when you belive women and men are totally equal you have to expect 50%. And then again it doesnt matter what you think is the best it is about what is true. And if you dont like the truth then dening it is not an option just because it sounds "bad". And i tell you what i get offended by people that tell me everything i do is just socially constructed and we are all blank sheets. YOu just have to pull the right triggers in childhood and i become a completly different person. I have my on identity and they way i am is not just because society made me to be this but because i am that way because i m born this way. This is a fucking dangerous idea saying that every human being is just a mass that you can mold the way you want to have it. We are not just a fucking mass that one can mold but we are individuales and everyone is differant in his or her own way. And there are many studies that reject the idea of every person being a blank sheet that you can programm the way you want in sexuality, behaviour etc. But some peoeple like you think that is a very nice and romantic idea of mankind. Without thinking about it twice. Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:16 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. So how do you falsify this theory? I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself. Nobody rejects the important role of society on the gender itself. Ofc it is not 100% it is rather 50 50.
Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".]
While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
|
I feel like there are both biological and societal roles, and thanks to r.Evo for posting an example- I'll try to check into that. Anecdotally, I can only express that we are happy with my staying home with the kids while my wife works in a "reversed roles" situation, but she is more career driven than I and I enjoy raising the kids. In that aspect I feel like society dictates the roles. I recently saw a study where more and more women are working instead of men in the US (iirc more women are working now) but I would need to find the article/source of that claim. Ironically, it also may have something to do with gender roles as so many engineering/manufacturing jobs are outsourced overseas.
Edit: Another point that bothers me with predefined gender roles, is that as a father, I have two polar opposite young daughters. One enjoys playing in the dirt, digging up worms and is what one would consider a "Tom Boy". The other enjoys ballet dancing and princesses and "girly girl" activities. Is one more "normal" than the other? Are both accepted as normal by society? Do gender roles need to be defined so rigidly in an "us v them" scenario? Judging from the innocence of youth I would think that conventional wisdom may be restrictive and forced, and external pressures rather than innate or natural.
|
On June 27 2013 11:25 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:17 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:10 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like". OK lets just say if you dont have 50% women in each profession then something isnt treating women equal etc. Then you have to activly force some people to do something they dont want so you reach 50% in each profession. Because when you belive women and men are totally equal you have to expect 50%. And then again it doesnt matter what you think is the best it is about what is true. And if you dont like the truth then dening it is not an option just because it sounds "bad". And i tell you what i get offended by people that tell me everything i do is just socially constructed and we are all blank sheets. YOu just have to pull the right triggers in childhood and i become a completly different person. I have my on identity and they way i am is not just because society made me to be this but because i am that way because i m born this way. This is a fucking dangerous idea saying that every human being is just a mass that you can mold the way you want to have it. We are not just a fucking mass that one can mold but we are individuales and everyone is differant in his or her own way. And there are many studies that reject the idea of every person being a blank sheet that you can programm the way you want in sexuality, behaviour etc. But some peoeple like you think that is a very nice and romantic idea of mankind. Without thinking about it twice. On June 27 2013 11:16 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. So how do you falsify this theory? I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself. Nobody rejects the important role of society on the gender itself. Ofc it is not 100% it is rather 50 50. Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes:
I am pretty sure he is arguing the opposite - that it is insane to force a 50/50 outcome which if you believe gender roles to be entirely due to society and not biology it seems to logically follow if you want to eradicate sexism.
EDIT: The quotas suggested and supported by many a feminist out there is an example of this logic.
EDIT2: I could be mistaken. To be honest I actually have no idea what either of you is arguing any more.
|
On June 27 2013 11:25 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:17 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:10 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like". OK lets just say if you dont have 50% women in each profession then something isnt treating women equal etc. Then you have to activly force some people to do something they dont want so you reach 50% in each profession. Because when you belive women and men are totally equal you have to expect 50%. And then again it doesnt matter what you think is the best it is about what is true. And if you dont like the truth then dening it is not an option just because it sounds "bad". And i tell you what i get offended by people that tell me everything i do is just socially constructed and we are all blank sheets. YOu just have to pull the right triggers in childhood and i become a completly different person. I have my on identity and they way i am is not just because society made me to be this but because i am that way because i m born this way. This is a fucking dangerous idea saying that every human being is just a mass that you can mold the way you want to have it. We are not just a fucking mass that one can mold but we are individuales and everyone is differant in his or her own way. And there are many studies that reject the idea of every person being a blank sheet that you can programm the way you want in sexuality, behaviour etc. But some peoeple like you think that is a very nice and romantic idea of mankind. Without thinking about it twice. On June 27 2013 11:16 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. So how do you falsify this theory? I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself. Nobody rejects the important role of society on the gender itself. Ofc it is not 100% it is rather 50 50. Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: Show nested quote +Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".] While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society.
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
|
On June 27 2013 11:30 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:25 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 11:17 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:10 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 11:07 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:59 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. It is not what not about what is bad or good. It is about what i belive and it i have very good reasoning for that. And it also has other risks in beliving what you do. For example if i belive men and women are equal in their behavior it causes stress on the genders if i want to force them into roles they dont like. Just like the genderroles you are reffering to but the other way round. So neither is your point "better" nor do you have more reasoning for it. Why the fuck are we going to be forcing men and women into roles they don't like? My way of doing things avoids doing that and allows each individual person maximum freedom in finding the role that works best for them. There is no "forcing people into roles they don't like". OK lets just say if you dont have 50% women in each profession then something isnt treating women equal etc. Then you have to activly force some people to do something they dont want so you reach 50% in each profession. Because when you belive women and men are totally equal you have to expect 50%. And then again it doesnt matter what you think is the best it is about what is true. And if you dont like the truth then dening it is not an option just because it sounds "bad". And i tell you what i get offended by people that tell me everything i do is just socially constructed and we are all blank sheets. YOu just have to pull the right triggers in childhood and i become a completly different person. I have my on identity and they way i am is not just because society made me to be this but because i am that way because i m born this way. This is a fucking dangerous idea saying that every human being is just a mass that you can mold the way you want to have it. We are not just a fucking mass that one can mold but we are individuales and everyone is differant in his or her own way. And there are many studies that reject the idea of every person being a blank sheet that you can programm the way you want in sexuality, behaviour etc. But some peoeple like you think that is a very nice and romantic idea of mankind. Without thinking about it twice. On June 27 2013 11:16 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:08 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 11:03 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 11:01 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:55 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:46 codonbyte wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. So how do you falsify this theory? I don't. With little evidence, both the innate biological position and the nurture position have equal weight because both explain the same thing and are most likely somewhat equal contributors. My only point is that gender does not mean 100% nature by itself. Nobody rejects the important role of society on the gender itself. Ofc it is not 100% it is rather 50 50. Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: I am pretty sure he is arguing the opposite - that it is insane to force a 50/50 outcome which if you believe gender roles to be entirely due to society and not biology it seems to logically follow if you want to eradicate sexism. EDIT: The quotas suggested and supported by many a feminist out there is an example of this logic. EDIT2: I could be mistaken. To be honest I actually have no idea what either of you is arguing any more.
To be honest, neither do I. I'm just confused, and I'm trying to watch a livestream while typing these responses. @_@
|
So in the past few pages we've went from people promoting/defending gay rights/equality to the same people perpetuating sexist beliefs? :/
One step forward, two steps backward
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I think it's because of my lousy paint skillz
|
Osaka27118 Posts
|
this makes me proud to be part of an all accepting group of ppl :D GJ TL :D♥
|
On June 27 2013 14:02 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:
So in the past few pages we've went from people promoting/defending gay rights/equality to the same people perpetuating sexist beliefs? :/
One step forward, two steps backward
To be fair, I think it's because a big chunk of the equal-rights-supporting majority just posted their love and left. I'm sure the haters don't represent anywhere near as significant a portion of TL as in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
