Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Playboy Myth - NOW "SEXIST" FREE (see p.19)

11011131516

Posts

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I couldn't even find a male one.

    But you're missing the point. Aside from a few niche-sports you can't really claim that genetics play a significant role. We just don't know enough about genetics nor do we know how big the influence of culture is.

    This is false. It isn't even just vague "genetics." People who produce less testosterone will not build up muscle as quickly, or to as high a point, as people who produce a lot of it naturally. Turns out guys have an advantage there.

    It's not a simple breakdown across all sports. Women are competitive and/or better at many forms of athletic competition.

    Yes, and I'm saying you have no idea as to how big that advantage is in most sports because most sports aren't strictly defined by your ability to build muscle.

    That's why the whole body-builders analogy doesn't work. It is solely about how good your muscles look.

    Not just bodybuilding. Powerlifting as well, which is all about strength.

    We have a pretty good basic idea of how big the advantage is. Any sport that relies primarily in strength is going to put women at a disadvantage. Sprinting and marathons rely more on endurance, and we know that in those sports the difference is between 5-10%. In sports that are more about strength, it is going to be greater.

    Getting over the muscle-testosterone debate for a while, a lot of man's better performance comes down to raw weight/height as well. Longer legs directly equate to faster running. Why not long ago I was reading an article about being heavier helping skiers. The effect weight and height have on certain parameters of a competition, depending on the bounds of it is interesting.

    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.


    And that's all fine and dandy but it still doesn't make the statement: "women are less good at sports because of genetics" any less stupid.

    Body-building and powerlifting are simple sports. That is, there is a clear goal and a clear way of working towards that goal. To cite that as proof that women are obviously worse at soccer and basketbal because of inferior genetics is just insane.

    To look at sports that are really complex (there are various strategies and plays and all that) and then look at the complexity of society and come to the simple conclusion that it's mostly genetics is just absurd.




    I mean, it could be true that women are in fact worse at stuff like this because of genetics. However, to assert that when there is so much stuff that could affect it and we don't even know all of it is silly. It's the same problem with evolutionary psychology: seeing stuff and then trying to rationalise it via one way that explain almost everything.

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

  • Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited June 2010
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

    Are you sure there's something wrong with it now...

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

    Ask them how they feel about things.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't know that active teaching would really work. Unfortunately I think a lot of it would have to come from exceptional parenting and probably fundamental societal changes which is kind of a bitch.

    sigtk.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

    What is active teaching? Therapy for boys to deprogram them from thinking crying is a sign of weakness?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6k50qB4Ys

    There are half a dozen reasons we're taught not to cry by our fathers, male role models, and TV, including such gems as 'getting emotional upsets the women in our lives and we have to put on a brave face for their sake' and 'you wanna look like a sissy?'

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.

    Men are better runners because of longer leg length, muscle, and the wider hips of women cause different rotations when they run which puts them at a disadvantage and makes them more prone to injury. The wider hips are needed because women are the ones who carry and give birth to a baby.

    This isn't a bad thing, if that wasn't the case childbirth would be far more dangerous if not fatal.

    In a similar issue, you know why all top level female gymnasts are really young and short? Because being tall and having a developed chest throws off your center of gravity making these things harder. So you will never see a tall woman with a developed chest in the olympics. On the male side, we don't have to worry about our chest, but you'll never see a tall man as a gymnast.

    It's simply a fact of life that different physical builds are more advantageous then others for certain activities.

    So when it comes to a lot of the base functions in many sports, running, jumping, strength, ect, the odds are stacked in men's favor. Which is why we avoid coed competitions.

    On the other hand women tend to live longer then men and develop nasty conditions later in life. From what I've read, most of that's genetics as well.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    if everyone cried would the world be a better place

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    if everyone cried would the world be a better place

    It would be a more moist place.

    Wydrion wrote: »
    ...Or you can sit around in the thread calling _J_ a cocksucker, you know, whatever's more constructive.
    3DS: 3668-7498-6513
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    if everyone cried would the world be a better place

    It would be a more moist place.

    Paladin is obviously a plant from the Kleenex corporation.

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    if everyone cried would the world be a better place

    I agree. More on topic with this thread. I've read in places that males bottling up emotions leads to various health problems.
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

    That's already going on. We don't spank kids anymore, boys are told not to fight instead of defend themselves, ect. We won't know the results for a while. Will we have more well adjusted adults, or will have raised a nation of wimps and cowards. Who knows.

  • Gennenalyse RuebenGennenalyse Rueben Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    There are half a dozen reasons we're taught not to cry by our fathers, male role models, and TV, including such gems as 'getting emotional upsets the women in our lives and we have to put on a brave face for their sake' and 'you wanna look like a sissy?'

    It's not just that. I've had these "lessons" quite cruelly beaten into my head by my peers and teachers, as well. There was no place to escape it, something I doubt has changed at all. I can't tell you how many years of my life were utter emotional hell because I thought there was something wrong with me. It wasn't just about emotions either, it was about nearly everything. Sports, video games, toys, even my choice of food. I see it on this forum with no irony at all. It's easy to miss when you're comfortable with it, but if you don't fit into the box your culture made for you it's often hell.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    On the original topic, how could we teach young boys better regulation of their emotions? Active teaching or more physically passive and subtle cultural nudging?

    What is active teaching? Therapy for boys to deprogram them from thinking crying is a sign of weakness?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6k50qB4Ys

    There are half a dozen reasons we're taught not to cry by our fathers, male role models, and TV, including such gems as 'getting emotional upsets the women in our lives and we have to put on a brave face for their sake' and 'you wanna look like a sissy?'

    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    it is a societal problem, not a problem caused solely by men

    georgersig.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.
    No actually, we would. What you're doing is ignoring other causes as to why women are not better at sports and focusing on purely physical characteristics.
    In a similar issue, you know why all top level female gymnasts are really young and short? Because being tall and having a developed chest throws off your center of gravity making these things harder. So you will never see a tall woman with a developed chest in the olympics. On the male side, we don't have to worry about our chest, but you'll never see a tall man as a gymnast.

    It's simply a fact of life that different physical builds are more advantageous then others for certain activities.

    So when it comes to a lot of the base functions in many sports, running, jumping, strength, ect, the odds are stacked in men's favor. Which is why we avoid coed competitions.

    This isn't actually true. I mean, the the first two paragrahps are certainly true, but the conclusion you make isn't. Men have a slight advantage in a bunch of ways. Women have others. But the reason we avoid coed competitions have far more to do with entrenched views about gender. Women-sports are just so much less focused on.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.
    No actually, we would. What you're doing is ignoring other causes as to why women are not better at sports and focusing on purely physical characteristics.

    Yes and no.

    Yes, if women were better atheletes we wopuld have absurd justifications as to why.

    That DOES NOT change the important of sexual dimorphism in this particular area, though. We may over emphasize it, but there is still a large real influence from it.

    georgersig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    georgersig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    Its pretty much the root cause behind all the angst that pops up in these threads. Dudes getting butthurt because they think someone bitching about patriarchy is bitching about men. They're not the same thing.


    Also, there's nothing funnier than watching a dude mansplain to a grown-ass lady that her hips are wider because of babies. Thanks for that tip ntsf, we'd all be lost without you :lol:

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.
    No actually, we would. What you're doing is ignoring other causes as to why women are not better at sports and focusing on purely physical characteristics.

    Yes and no.

    Yes, if women were better atheletes we wopuld have absurd justifications as to why.

    That DOES NOT change the important of sexual dimorphism in this particular area, though. We may over emphasize it, but there is still a large real influence from it.

    Yeah...actually this was studied in netball players. What was found was that during different periods of their menstrual cycle, the risk of muscle injuries in the legs went up. The observation was that higher hormone levels at the fertility peak of their cycle seem to cause a degree of relaxation in the muscles and ligaments, allowing them to flex slightly more.

    Of course, since the mentrual cycle can be beaten out with the Pill (and in many athletes, doesn't occur normally anyway)...

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    I didn't know Loklar was a grown woman. I don't assume gender/age/amount of information knwon when I post on the internet.

    Because I'm not psychic. Glad you are. And nice insults at men in general. Though from you, 100% expected.

  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, there's nothing funnier than watching a dude mansplain to a grown-ass lady that her hips are wider because of babies. Thanks for that tip ntsf, we'd all be lost without you :lol:

    I c wat u did there

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    I didn't know Loklar was a grown woman. I don't assume gender/age/amount of information knwon when I post on the internet.

    Because I'm not psychic. Glad you are. And nice insults at men in general. Though from you, 100% expected.

    I figured it out from the one post on that page and i don't even know her, are you just not paying attention because you're looking too hard for things to be offended about?

    Signs point to yes.

    edit: actually you know what, i conflated a couple of posts there, so disregard. you're still being pretty silly though.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.
    No actually, we would. What you're doing is ignoring other causes as to why women are not better at sports and focusing on purely physical characteristics.

    Yes and no.

    Yes, if women were better atheletes we wopuld have absurd justifications as to why.

    That DOES NOT change the important of sexual dimorphism in this particular area, though. We may over emphasize it, but there is still a large real influence from it.

    Yeah...actually this was studied in netball players. What was found was that during different periods of their menstrual cycle, the risk of muscle injuries in the legs went up. The observation was that higher hormone levels at the fertility peak of their cycle seem to cause a degree of relaxation in the muscles, allowing them to flex slightly more.

    Of course, since the mentrual cycle can be beaten out with the Pill (and in many athletes, doesn't occur normally anyway)...

    Is that an oxytocin effect? Because its pretty well-known that stretching too much/too intensely while pregnant can cause problems since elevated oxytocin levels screw around with one's ligaments (its the same reason some women's feet change size, everything holding the foot bones together kind of relaxes a bit). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a subdued version of the same effect within a standard menstrual cycle.

    That said, I also don't think its unmanageable or a dealbreaker for a sportsperson. And there is increasing evidence of hormonal cycles in men, although obviously they work differently. Its just that not as many people seem interested in studying that...

    tmsig.jpg
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    I didn't know Loklar was a grown woman. I don't assume gender/age/amount of information knwon when I post on the internet.

    Because I'm not psychic. Glad you are. And nice insults at men in general. Though from you, 100% expected.

    I figured it out from the one post on that page and i don't even know her, are you just not paying attention because you're looking too hard for things to be offended about?

    Signs point to yes.

    I'm not offended at anything. I don't make any assumptions about what anybody could be over the internet because it is the internet. Anybody could be anybody. So unless, for the sake of this forum, it's someone I know in game or have ran into IRL, you're all the same to me. This is why argument to authority doesn't work here either. I didn't see anything that pointed to she being a she, and even then who knows.

    I just find it funny that you come running back into this thread and the first thing you do is get in a huff and then start hurling insults at men in general now that your standard go to crux is forbidden.

    Not offended at all. It's entertaining and I got a good laugh out of it. It's like Pavlov's dog.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Our hips are different as well, which has a negative impact on women in some areas. Since their hips are obviously wider due to having to bear children our muscles are not stressed in an identical way when running. There are various results for this, namely work different muscle groups more, but there is mounting evidence it may contribute to the fact that females are more prone to develope some injuries then men are.

    If women were the faster runners we'd say that men are slower because their cocks got in the way. Backwards justification ftw.

    Um, no we wouldn't, that's silly.
    No actually, we would. What you're doing is ignoring other causes as to why women are not better at sports and focusing on purely physical characteristics.

    Yes and no.

    Yes, if women were better atheletes we wopuld have absurd justifications as to why.

    That DOES NOT change the important of sexual dimorphism in this particular area, though. We may over emphasize it, but there is still a large real influence from it.

    Yeah...actually this was studied in netball players. What was found was that during different periods of their menstrual cycle, the risk of muscle injuries in the legs went up. The observation was that higher hormone levels at the fertility peak of their cycle seem to cause a degree of relaxation in the muscles and ligaments, allowing them to flex slightly more.

    Of course, since the mentrual cycle can be beaten out with the Pill (and in many athletes, doesn't occur normally anyway)...

    absolutely

    to make things clear, sexual dimorphism only sets the baseline. plenty of women are MUCH BETTER athletes than the average man.

    georgersig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    I didn't know Loklar was a grown woman. I don't assume gender/age/amount of information knwon when I post on the internet.

    Because I'm not psychic. Glad you are. And nice insults at men in general. Though from you, 100% expected.

    I figured it out from the one post on that page and i don't even know her, are you just not paying attention because you're looking too hard for things to be offended about?

    Signs point to yes.

    I'm not offended at anything. I don't make any assumptions about what anybody could be over the internet because it is the internet. Anybody could be anybody. So unless, for the sake of this forum, it's someone I know in game or have ran into IRL, you're all the same to me. This is why argument to authority doesn't work here either.

    I just find it funny that you come running back into this thread and the first thing you do is get in a huff and then start hurling an insults now that your standard go to crux is forbidden.

    Not offended at all. It's entertaining and I got a good laugh out of it. It's like Pavlov's dog.

    Pointing out that its stupid for people to confuse patriarchy with men is not 'throwing insults'. Stop being stupid. I'm not the one dragging the thread down here, you are. Lighten up.

    tmsig.jpg
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    I didn't know Loklar was a grown woman. I don't assume gender/age/amount of information knwon when I post on the internet.

    Because I'm not psychic. Glad you are. And nice insults at men in general. Though from you, 100% expected.

    I figured it out from the one post on that page and i don't even know her, are you just not paying attention because you're looking too hard for things to be offended about?

    Signs point to yes.

    I'm not offended at anything. I don't make any assumptions about what anybody could be over the internet because it is the internet. Anybody could be anybody. So unless, for the sake of this forum, it's someone I know in game or have ran into IRL, you're all the same to me. This is why argument to authority doesn't work here either.

    I just find it funny that you come running back into this thread and the first thing you do is get in a huff and then start hurling an insults now that your standard go to crux is forbidden.

    Not offended at all. It's entertaining and I got a good laugh out of it. It's like Pavlov's dog.

    Pointing out that its stupid for people to confuse patriarchy with men is not 'throwing insults'. Stop being stupid. I'm not the one dragging the thread down here, you are. Lighten up.

    ORLY

    Also, there's nothing funnier than watching a dude mansplain to a grown-ass lady

    Due and mansplain are negative terms. Grown ass shows hostility.

    Again, I'm not upset. I found your outburst rather expected and silly. I got a laugh out of it, thanks.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    .... this is why us men don't display our emotions very often. Shit gets weird.

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    Its pretty much the root cause behind all the angst that pops up in these threads. Dudes getting butthurt because they think someone bitching about patriarchy is bitching about men. They're not the same thing.

    Not all of the people bitching always know that, for the record (not that i've seen that in this particular thread yet).

    But honestly, I have a problem blaming this on "the patriarchy". Women have had plenty of incentive for perpetuating this particular gender role in the past. the idea that in a partnership one party is allowed to behave irrationally on occasion and blame it on emotions, but the other is expected to always behave in a rational manner shows a clear advantage (ceteris paribus). Yes, it does have a strong historical link with the concept of the "big strong man", but that doesn't mean that only men benefit from it (arguably, men don't really benefit from it at all. it is really just an extra burden on them.)



    I'm not saying that there is some secret conspircacy of women, what I'm saying is that ALL of society, women included, is guilty of perpetrating certain gender roles for both genders.

    georgersig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »

    ORLY

    Also, there's nothing funnier than watching a dude mansplain to a grown-ass lady

    Due and mansplain are negative terms. Grown ass shows hostility.

    Again, I'm not upset. I found your outburst rather expected and silly. I got a laugh out of it, thanks.

    Wow. wow. 'dude' is a negative term? what? I don't even

    you what you have fun with that

    and you really don't have any place commenting about hostility while displaying this level of passive aggression.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    Its pretty much the root cause behind all the angst that pops up in these threads. Dudes getting butthurt because they think someone bitching about patriarchy is bitching about men. They're not the same thing.

    Not all of the people bitching always know that, for the record (not that i've seen that in this particular thread yet).

    But honestly, I have a problem blaming this on "the patriarchy". Women have had plenty of incentive for perpetuating this particular gender role in the past. the idea that in a partnership one party is allowed to behave irrationally on occasion and blame it on emotions, but the other is expected to always behave in a rational manner shows a clear advantage (ceteris paribus). Yes, it does have a strong historical link with the concept of the "big strong man", but that doesn't mean that only men benefit from it (arguably, men don't really benefit from it at all. it is really just an extra burden on them.)



    I'm not saying that there is some secret conspircacy of women, what I'm saying is that ALL of society, women included, is guilty of perpetrating certain gender roles for both genders.

    that's kind of what i just said, but with a lot more words :P

    tmsig.jpg
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    Its pretty much the root cause behind all the angst that pops up in these threads. Dudes getting butthurt because they think someone bitching about patriarchy is bitching about men. They're not the same thing.

    Not all of the people bitching always know that, for the record (not that i've seen that in this particular thread yet).

    But honestly, I have a problem blaming this on "the patriarchy". Women have had plenty of incentive for perpetuating this particular gender role in the past. the idea that in a partnership one party is allowed to behave irrationally on occasion and blame it on emotions, but the other is expected to always behave in a rational manner shows a clear advantage (ceteris paribus). Yes, it does have a strong historical link with the concept of the "big strong man", but that doesn't mean that only men benefit from it (arguably, men don't really benefit from it at all. it is really just an extra burden on them.)



    I'm not saying that there is some secret conspircacy of women, what I'm saying is that ALL of society, women included, is guilty of perpetrating certain gender roles for both genders.

    That's sort of what patriarchy means. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy of men trying to keep women down, it means everyone in society assumes men are awesome and women are kind of lame, because that's what everyone around them says.

    It is well-known that patriarchy hurts men too. But it's worse for women.

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    .... this is why us men don't display our emotions very often. Shit gets weird.

    Man emotions 101. I find that someone using a childish phrase such as "dude has to mansplain" and then calling them self "grown-ass" right after highly funny and amusing. Not offensive. I saw it as an attempt to bash the frat type guys that say dude, and then knock male intelligence only the sly and be witty that fell on it's face given the context, hence I got a kick out of it.

    Personally I'd have gone for "you don't need to explain t a woman about her hips, we know" rather then trying to be a smart ass. But that wouldn't have been as funny, so in the end, this brought me some entertainment while waiting for dinner to cook.

    There, I have explained what went through this man's head.

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Addressing this whole "women are not as strong" etc.

    I've heard that women are actually stronger, pound-for-pound. They generally don't reach the same size as men for a variety of reasons, but (not sure if there's a better way to put this) "to scale" women are, again from what I've heard, on average stronger than men.

    I'd look this up but I'm kinda lazy at the moment.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    little boys get taught not to cry by women too

    :?:

    gender expectations are foisted on children by adults of BOTH genders

    personally, it bothers me when I see repetition of the idea that men are the ones perpetrating gender roles, as opposed to society in general, because I believe it causes some people to miss the point.

    Its pretty much the root cause behind all the angst that pops up in these threads. Dudes getting butthurt because they think someone bitching about patriarchy is bitching about men. They're not the same thing.

    Not all of the people bitching always know that, for the record (not that i've seen that in this particular thread yet).

    But honestly, I have a problem blaming this on "the patriarchy". Women have had plenty of incentive for perpetuating this particular gender role in the past. the idea that in a partnership one party is allowed to behave irrationally on occasion and blame it on emotions, but the other is expected to always behave in a rational manner shows a clear advantage (ceteris paribus). Yes, it does have a strong historical link with the concept of the "big strong man", but that doesn't mean that only men benefit from it (arguably, men don't really benefit from it at all. it is really just an extra burden on them.)



    I'm not saying that there is some secret conspircacy of women, what I'm saying is that ALL of society, women included, is guilty of perpetrating certain gender roles for both genders.

    That's sort of what patriarchy means. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy of men trying to keep women down, it means everyone in society assumes men are awesome and women are kind of lame, because that's what everyone around them says.

    It is well-known that patriarchy hurts men too. But it's worse for women.

    You don't know our secret pain

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    .... this is why us men don't display our emotions very often. Shit gets weird.

    Man emotions 101. I find that someone using a childish phrase such as "dude has to mansplain" and then calling them self "grown-ass" right after highly funny and amusing. Not offensive. I saw it as an attempt to bash the frat type guys that say dude, and then knock male intelligence only the sly and be witty that fell on it's face given the context, hence I got a kick out of it.

    Personally I'd have gone for "you don't need to explain t a woman about her hips, we know" rather then trying to be a smart ass. But that wouldn't have been as funny, so in the end, this brought me some entertainment while waiting for dinner to cook.

    There, I have explained what went through this man's head.

    You're clearly a little irritated, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to clarify that you are Amused By This Childishness.

    People who genuinely find forum bullshit to be amusing just laugh or troll instead of typing out long posts.

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    That's sort of what patriarchy means. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy of men trying to keep women down, it means everyone in society assumes men are awesome and women are kind of lame, because that's what everyone around them says.

    It is well-known that patriarchy hurts men too. But it's worse for women.

    Well then there should be a new term for it. Patriarchy comes as a loaded term. Unless you're able to define in a sound bite, because of our ADD nation, how it's not an attack on men, it can be taken as such simply because of what people have been told a patriarch is.

    Trying to convince people to work against something works better when you don't use loaded terms.
    You're clearly a little irritated, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to clarify that you are Amused By This Childishness.

    At this point I'm just having fun with it and running with it, I took the chance to stir up a little shit. But think what you like.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    That's sort of what patriarchy means. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy of men trying to keep women down, it means everyone in society assumes men are awesome and women are kind of lame, because that's what everyone around them says.

    It is well-known that patriarchy hurts men too. But it's worse for women.

    Well then there should be a new term for it. Patriarchy comes as a loaded term. Unless you're able to define in a sound bite, because of our ADD nation, how it's not an attack on men, it can be taken as such simply because of what people have been told a patriarch is.

    Trying to convince people to work against something works better when you don't use loaded terms.

    That's flat ridiculous. Patriarchy is a well-defined term not just among feminists but among the anthropological studies in which it originated. You not knowing what the term means (and apparently substituting a set of ridiculous stereotypes for its actual meaning instead of doing some danged research) does not invalidate its usefulness.

    tmsig.jpg
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    That's sort of what patriarchy means. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy of men trying to keep women down, it means everyone in society assumes men are awesome and women are kind of lame, because that's what everyone around them says.

    It is well-known that patriarchy hurts men too. But it's worse for women.

    Well then there should be a new term for it. Patriarchy comes as a loaded term. Unless you're able to define in a sound bite, because of our ADD nation, how it's not an attack on men, it can be taken as such simply because of what people have been told a patriarch is.

    Trying to convince people to work against something works better when you don't use loaded terms.

    pa·tri·arch·y
       /ˈpeɪtriˌɑrki/ Show Spelled[pey-tree-ahr-kee] Show IPA
    –noun, plural -ies.
    1.
    a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
    2.
    a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

    Is that....

    ...is that soundbitey enough for you?
    I mean I have ADHD and I don't take that as a particularly loaded definition.

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
This discussion has been closed.