|
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
|
On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
|
On February 25 2014 10:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
|
He's telling you to actually inform yourself of the arguments of feminism, and then to explain why they are wrong. What you are currently doing, is reading the arguments of /certain feminists/ and having a little hissy fit over it.
|
On February 25 2014 17:42 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 10:27 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got. No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable. What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
|
No acutally i m not doing that specifically see it as a mixture. Just pointing out how crazy feminism is, i know their arguments very well. It is not the first time i m having a "hissy fit" over them. Their arguments are wrong because they argue on the basis of unproven, contradictary theories that are not unfalsifiable. It doesnt matter what they say when their foundation is build on sand anyway. Somehow you cannot realize this and redirect me to their ciruclar logic. I have no interest in having a discussion inside your bubble. It is like discussing the bible with the pope.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/darfor-ar-kvinnor-kortare-an-man&act=url
Swedish magazine claims that women are shorter than men because they are discriminated.
On February 25 2014 19:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 17:42 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:27 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got. No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable. What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash.
http://vimeo.com/19707588
|
On February 25 2014 19:02 Sokrates wrote:No acutally i m not doing that specifically see it as a mixture. Just pointing out how crazy feminism is, i know their arguments very well. Lol. Not form what I've seen.It is not the first time i m having a "hissy fit" over them. So you've had multiple then! Wonderful.Their arguments are wrong because they argue on the basis of unproven, contradictary theories that are not unfalsifiable. Contradictory* And feminist theory is about as unfalsifiable as anti-racism theory, but okay. I mean, it's not like you've provided any evidence or discussion anyway. I guess I should just believe your hissy fits over all the literary and scholarly articles out there. OH SOKRATES, YOU OF MUCH AUTHORITY, GUIDE US WITH YOUR ETHOS AGAINST THIS VILE FEMINISM!It doesnt matter what they say when their foundation is build on sand anyway. Do you even know their foundation? Lol. You might as well say that the 14th amendment's foundation is built on sand as well. Also, what's the foundation of your claim? Oh, right, nothing. Somehow you cannot realize this and redirect me to their ciruclar logic. Somehow you can't spell. Circular*. Also, apparently you don't realize that feminist theory has more confirmation, utility, authority, and evidence than your... well... nothing. You're also the one making the claim that feminism is damaging to society, so uh, prove this, please. Oh you haven't provided any evidence what so ever? Okay.I have no interest in having a discussion inside your bubble. It is like discussing the bible with the pope. Don't worry. I feel like I'm discussing with a close-minded illiterate who doesn't understand feminism. And you know what? I think I have more support for my feelings than you do for your whole argument. lol.http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/darfor-ar-kvinnor-kortare-an-man&act=urlSwedish magazine claims that women are shorter than men because they are discriminated. "Oh look, I'm taking 1 article and using it to argue against feminism, when I have no clue what it's about." How about you actually read some major works like this article which influenced both social psychology and sociology, which, by the way, shows that feminism indeed contributed great content to society.Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 17:42 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:27 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got. No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable. What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say. They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash. http://vimeo.com/19707588._. They produced the 19th amendment. WOW, SUCH TRASH! More like the shit your posting is trash lol.
|
You should read the thread, there are much more examples provided not just two. And you shouldnt point out spelling mistakes when you cant spell yourself .
It is also funny that you point out feminist theory has any validation, gender is a social construct has been debunked multiple times.
It produces some real gems of science like this one:
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”
|
Hey look, I'm gonna use Sokrates style of arguing.
Men are all fucking terrible, they all fucking suck, because they say stupid things. Can you prove that men as a concept are not a waste of time? It's all just circular logic anyway.
LOOK AT THIS: + Show Spoiler + THIS MAN IS SO FUCKING DUMB AHAHAHAHA. Men are all stupid. fin.
|
Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
|
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs? This is a fucking optimistic post. Most people here are just trying to get Sokrates to try to back up his arguments in any kind of reasonable way. Trying to convince him that society is in fact incredibly sexist is a really really long shot I think.
EDIT: Will admit though, this is a really concise and convincing way of framing some of the issues women face, so good job there.
|
well he cant back up his argument in any reasonable way so i might as well attack it.
|
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male.
You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world.
It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation.
You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room.
Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this.
You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men.
Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city.
I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs? Oh man... Your "points" are so unbelievably ridiculous and illogical that I have to say something.
1. Maybe because there are no good female candidates? If a female lack of CEO's and presidents is a sign of female oppression, then what is the fact that males are overrepresented among homeless ppl a sign of? Male oppression? Does that even exist in your vocabulary? Your conclusion that a underrepresentation of a category can only be a sign of oppression is just ridiculous. You're totally overlooking biological science and personal choice. Do you really think that a 50/50 distribution on all jobs is fair? Why do you assume that this is what men and women wants? 2. So you're saying that the reason why certain ppl oppose abortion is because it's a way to oppress women? What about the women who are against abortion? They just want to suppress women, including themselves, right? And I thought that the abortion debate was about the concept of life, and the disagreements of what a life is. 3. Yeah, because being a dick is a compliment, right? And since when was it a compliment to call a woman manly? Try calling a woman that and see how she reacts to being compared to "the superior gender". Calling a man a pussy is an insult, because it hints that he has many of the qualities that are stereotypically more common in women than in men. It hints that he doesn't have the qualities that women are generally attracted to, so it's an insult to his ability to pass on his DNA. It has nothing to do with him being equaled to a woman. 5. If certain ppl makes fun of someone who have been raped, they're scumbags, period. Why would you even have to mention this when it's so obvious? And it's irrelevant if women in Lesotho are being raped, or aren't allowed to go to school, if we're discussing western society. In fact, it offends me that you bring up their cause, when their cause isn't even part of the discussion. It's sickening, and it makes me question your self-proclaimed role as a protector of women. The person who thinks that only feminists cares about female oppression in the 3rd world, or even female oppression in the west, is an idiot. 6. Please show examples of commercials and sitcoms that acts as propaganda, to put women in the service of men. 7. Please mention any laws that favors men over women. 8. Please mention any examples of female oppression in sports.
|
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
I m not arguing against that kind of feminism. I never did, and i never said feminism was bad throughout all history. I m arguing against that "gender is a social construct" "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" feminism in the firt world. Where people claim that there are so few women in male dominated jobs like computer science because of the patriarchy. I m talking about that kind of feminism that sees sexism and rape everywhere in our daily life and immediately assumes this must be misogyny and rape culture. Yes we objectivy women in the locker room because that is what we care about when we see a good looking woman. This is never going to change, when i see i woman with big tits and talk about her with my buddys then we dont speculate how smart she is when we dont even know her. It is not like women dont do the same. We care more about the looks and they care more about status, something you assume is learned.
You bring up CEOs are mostly male, well i think might be a good portion of sexism behind it, but there is also a good portion of innate male qualitiys involved that make men more successful. There are also certain male "qualitys" that leadto more suicides, more homelessness more prisoners etc. So there we are:Which part is sexism and which part is biology? How are you ever going to find out? What is your suggestion to change it? Equal rights are not enough so we have to enforce something by law.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote:
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
You might be right in this case but where do you draw the line? Next time it is sexist to do a research about male and female like brains because it propagates sexism.
|
The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets.
|
On February 26 2014 02:28 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male.
You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world.
It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation.
You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room.
Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this.
You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men.
Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city.
I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs? Oh man... Your "points" are so unbelievably ridiculous and illogical that I have to say something. oh you again. sorry for moving your hands around your keyboard.
1. Maybe because there are no good female candidates? If a female lack of CEO's and presidents is a sign of female oppression, then what is the fact that males are overrepresented among homeless ppl a sign of? Male oppression? Does that even exist in your vocabulary? Your conclusion that a underrepresentation of a category can only be a sign of oppression is just ridiculous. You're totally overlooking biological science and personal choice. Do you really think that a 50/50 distribution on all jobs is fair? Why do you assume that this is what men and women wants? Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
2. So you're saying that the reason why certain ppl oppose abortion is because it's a way to oppress women? What about the women who are against abortion? They just want to suppress women, including themselves, right? And I thought that the abortion debate was about the concept of life, and the disagreements of what a life is. your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
3. Yeah, because being a dick is a compliment, right? And since when was it a compliment to call a woman manly? Try calling a woman that and see how she reacts to being compared to "the superior gender". Calling a man a pussy is an insult, because it hints that he has many of the qualities that are stereotypically more common in women than in men. It hints that he doesn't have the qualities that women are generally attracted to, so it's an insult to his ability to pass on his DNA. It has nothing to do with him being equaled to a woman. pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
5. If certain ppl makes fun of someone who have been raped, they're scumbags, period. Why would you even have to mention this when it's so obvious? And it's irrelevant if women in Lesotho are being raped, or aren't allowed to go to school, if we're discussing western society. In fact, it offends me that you bring up their cause, when their cause isn't even part of the discussion. It's sickening, and it makes me question your self-proclaimed role as a protector of women. The person who thinks that only feminists cares about female oppression in the 3rd world, or even female oppression in the west, is an idiot. because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
6. Please show examples of commercials and sitcoms that acts as propaganda, to put women in the service of men. well in every sitcom the fat husband sits on the couch while his hot wife gets him a beer after a long day of him at work and her home with the kids. in a lot commercials women serve men and never the opposite?
7. Please mention any laws that favors men over women. 8. Please mention any examples of female oppression in sports. did you mean to direct these questions at me for any particular reason? cause now your just bringing up random stuff. but since you asked so nicely. its still not criminal to rape your wife in india. and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 26 2014 03:32 Mothra wrote: The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets. well like i said a couple pages back, as far as i'm concerned, feminism is simply anti-oppression against women.
|
On February 26 2014 02:32 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
I m not arguing against that kind of feminism. I never did, and i never said feminism was bad throughout all history. I m arguing against that "gender is a social construct" "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" feminism in the firt world. Where people claim that there are so few women in male dominated jobs like computer science because of the patriarchy. I m talking about that kind of feminism that sees sexism and rape everywhere in our daily life and immediately assumes this must be misogyny and rape culture. Yes we objectivy women in the locker room because that is what we care about when we see a good looking woman. This is never going to change, when i see i woman with big tits and talk about her with my buddys then we dont speculate how smart she is when we dont even know her. It is not like women dont do the same. We care more about the looks and they care more about status, something you assume is learned. You bring up CEOs are mostly male, well i think might be a good portion of sexism behind it, but there is also a good portion of innate male qualitiys involved that make men more successful. There are also certain male "qualitys" that leadto more suicides, more homelessness more prisoners etc. So there we are:Which part is sexism and which part is biology? How are you ever going to find out? What is your suggestion to change it? Equal rights are not enough so we have to enforce something by law. Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote:
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs? You might be right in this case but where do you draw the line? Next time it is sexist to do a research about male and female like brains because it propagates sexism. im not drawing lines or anything. you see sexism. i see sexism. we both agree thats bad. lets work together to get rid of it. It's true I do believe the reason this sexism exists is because "gender is *largely* a social construct" "the patriarchy" exists in most houses and "rape culture" still isn't completely dead. iuno why you find those ideas so offensive but w.e. the reason im sure if we all work together we can stop oppressing women.
|
On February 25 2014 19:02 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 17:42 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:27 kwizach wrote:On February 25 2014 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you. Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences? Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got. No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable. What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say. They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash. http://vimeo.com/19707588 Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
On February 26 2014 03:32 Mothra wrote: The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets. Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. You're welcome.
|
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote:
Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Exactly, i never said something else. But genderstudies supports the idea that there are NO biological differences as you can see in this documentation.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote:Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
So what is your point? Every expert is confronted with the argument of the other. What bias the author holds or what you think what bias he holds is nearly irrelevant.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
So you are claiming that culture already has an impact on babies that are not even 2 days old? That is what i said with unfalsifiable. You already assume that outcome of this tests are useless.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
Again: This are babies, if there are difference then they will be very small because they are just 1-2 days old.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
Every scientist has some sort of bias,it is utterly ridicolous to invaldiate a scientific study based on the fact that the author was looking for it. The most biased people i ve ever came to know are gendersstudies people. They state by definition that there are no sex differences and now i have to assume that the very same people that by definition exclude this option (none of the people arguing on behalf of biological differences excluded cultural influence) are unbiased. That is just absurd.
It is nearly impossible to do studies that exclude cultural factors because culture is everywhere. You even point out it already has an effect on 1 day old babies. That is what i meant with unfalsifiable. There are also newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains. Also you leave out the fact that career choices in more progressive countries are more gendersperated than in countries that are more archaic and "backwards" which is paradox. There are also phenomenons that are consistant in nearly every culture in history.
You can always make up hypothesis and theories that are sound but you cannot prove them, genderpeople just assume their theories are correct and unbiased while people that are "looking" for innate differences have to be biased per se (because they are trying to find such which is ridicolous).
What feminists believe is that low air pressure in your tires will make you lose the race everytime and there are no other factors.
I m sry but i m not so naive that i believe in a social contruct when you can see the diffferences each day and even scientific data suggests this is true. I also never said culture doesnt have a big influence on the genders. I believe it is both, and i have to say people that believe in either culture or biology are incredibly narrow minded to me.
To sum up my point: I do not support a movement that pushes certain agandas on the base of an unproven ideology. Not more and not less. All i say: Equal rights for everybody, but no "affirmative" action no quotas and no "special rights" for women. Simple as that.
Also: Fuck off trying to change laws, stop pushing quotas and stop painting men a oppressive sexist pigs and thinking womeen are cute little angles that have no responsibility for their own action and it is always the patriarchys fault. If women chose not to go into tech then it is THEIR problem and THEIR fault not the fault of geeky nerds that are exclusive.
|
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote:
Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Exactly, i never said something else. But genderstudies supports the idea that there are NO biological differences as you can see in this documentation. Actually, you specifically argued against the existence of the social construction of gender. Also, gender studies seek to analyze gender identity and roles - they do not seek to provide a biological verification of the existence or not of a physical determinism. Some of the social scientists who work on gender, however, do follow the research being done on the existence or not of biological determinism, and right now it can very much be said, exactly as the social scientist appearing in the "documentary" does, that the scientific evidence available does not support the idea that there are fundamental biological differences between the brains of men and women that would lead to different interests/choices in career paths/major cognitive traits.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote:Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected. So what is your point? Every expert is confronted with the argument of the other. What bias the author holds or what you think what bias he holds is nearly irrelevant. Uh, what? I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated my point. The main character is pretending to be neutral and candid when he isn't at all. His progressive espousal of the views of the selected psychologists and evolution scientist is presented as a result of the "logical" validity of their arguments, as opposed to (what is shown as) the ideological stance of the social scientists. In reality, he agreed with the first group from the start and made the entire documentary to discredit the views of the second group.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
So you are claiming that culture already has an impact on babies that are not even 2 days old? That is what i said with unfalsifiable. You already assume that outcome of this tests are useless. No, I don't assume that, so take the time to read what I wrote. I said that being 36,7 hrs old is different from being 24 hrs old, and that it CAN be that culture has started to have an impact at that point. The ones who are declaring that being 36,7 hrs old is equivalent to being in a blank state in terms of cultural factors are the ones making an assumption.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
Again: This are babies, if there are difference then they will be very small because they are just 1-2 days old. What the hell is this supposed to even mean? Do you realize that the entire point of the interview of Baron-Cohen was that he said there were differences between male and female babies? I just explained to you what that assertion was very problematic with regards to some of the results obtained. If you're going to respond something, then take the time to frigging pay attention to what I'm saying to you and to write a coherent response - I took 30 minutes of my life to watch your stupid unscientific documentary and even more to write this reply to you, so it seems to me that the least you can do is take the time to reply seriously if you're going to reply at all.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
Every scientist has some sort of bias,it is utterly ridicolous to invaldiate a scientific study based on the fact that the author was looking for it. First of all, I am not "invalidating" the study based on the fact that the author was looking for a particular result. I just explained to you AT LENGTH the NUMEROUS problems with the study, including the fact that the results that appear in the study do not corroborate the narrative that is put forward in the documentary. Here, I was explaining to you why, contrary to how his findings are presented in the documentary, Baron-Cohen was not simply a neutral scientist who happened to reach this particular result based on looking objectively at the evidence.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: The most biased people i ve ever came to know are gendersstudies people. Citation needed.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: They state by definition that there are no sex differences and now i have to assume that the very same people that by definition exclude this option (none of the people arguing on behalf of biological differences excluded cultural influence) are unbiased. That is just absurd. First of all, I never said anything about people engaging in gender studies never having any bias. I pointed out the numerous problems of bias in the documentary which YOU cited as evidence of feminists producing "stuff" that is "wrong or plain trash". If you cite shitty documentaries full of bias, it's your fault, so don't throw a hissy fit when that very bias is underlined.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: It is nearly impossible to do studies that exclude cultural factors because culture is everywhere. You even point out it already has an effect on 1 day old babies. That is what i meant with unfalsifiable. There are also newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains. It's not unfalsifiable per se, it's simply an independent variable that is difficult to isolate. Also, no, there are no "newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains". If you're thinking of the article published in December by Ingalhalikara et al., I can already stop you right there - not only have media reports completely blown out of proportion was is actually in the article, but the very findings of the study do not support the conclusions of the authors (see for example here).
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: Also you leave out the fact that career choices in more progressive countries are more gendersperated than in countries that are more archaic and "backwards" which is paradox. There are also phenomenons that are consistant in nearly every culture in history. The study referred to in the "documentary" is certainly not about "nearly every culture in history". It examines the situation in several different countries today and with a sample that is quite certainly not representative. Regardless, if the countries selected overwhelmingly exhibit patriarchal features, why would you expect different results?
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: You can always make up hypothesis and theories that are sound but you cannot prove them, genderpeople just assume their theories are correct and unbiased while people that are "looking" for innate differences have to be biased per se (because they are trying to find such which is ridicolous). Citation needed. Have you actually read any book in gender studies? There are plenty of analyses, even outside of gender studies (psychology etc.) which demonstrate the impact of cultural factors and explain the social construction of gender roles.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: What feminists believe is that low air pressure in your tires will make you lose the race everytime and there are no other factors. No, that is you having no frigging clue at all of what gender studies say and produce.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: I m sry but i m not so naive that i believe in a social contruct when you can see the diffferences each day and even scientific data suggests this is true. Uh, the differences you see each day are precisely the result of the enactment of social constructs. Do you even know what you're talking about? Regarding the "scientific data" you refer to, you're again completely wrong - to quote the American Psychological Association, "men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership". Here's an article on 46 meta-analyses that show exactly that: Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). "Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis", Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 139-155.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: I also never said culture doesnt have a big influence on the genders. I believe it is both, and i have to say people that believe in either culture or biology are incredibly narrow minded to me. You can believe what you want. The point is that the scientific studies on the matter show little to no impact of biological differences on the kind of cognitive traits you are referring to.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: To sum up my point: I do not support a movement that pushes certain agandas on the base of an unproven ideology. Funny, because you just cited a documentary which does exactly that.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: top painting men a oppressive sexist pigs and thinking womeen are cute little angles that have no responsibility for their own action and it is always the patriarchys fault. It's raining strawmen.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: If women chose not to go into tech then it is THEIR problem and THEIR fault not the fault of geeky nerds that are exclusive. Didn't you just say "I also never said culture doesn't have a big influence"? The first half of your statement, as repeatedly demonstrated here, is completely wrong. The second half has nothing to do with gender studies and is, again, a strawman.
|
|
|
|