Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

12345679»

Posts

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    So let me get this straight: despite the fact that these people have about 12 more kids than are economically feasible under a single middle-class income, and thus must recieving a shitton of cash from the community, far more than 95% of familys on welfare, you support them and find them responsible people because it's not actually welfare per se?

    You do realize they probably recieve a lot of money because nobody wants a family of 17 crazies on the street right?

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    I'm not trying to derail with an abortion debate, just showing that support is not moving towards abortion, but away (although not terribly fast).

    I don't think so, although it looks like public opinion isn't moving in either direction.

    For what it's worth.

    EDIT: So the "welfare queens" that don't really exist are a bigger problem than the religious conservatives whose publicly-avowed political goals include repression of women in patriarchal "traditional family" roles?

    Here's a more detailed one: Gallup.

    Watching trends since the mid-90's, there's an overall move toward decreased support and increased desire to overturn Roe v Wade.

    Now, regarding welfare queens: The point was made to differentiate between state-coerced support vs. voluntary community support of a large family. I'm not postulating they are in even remotely significant numbers.

    ryuprecht on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    What does abortion have to do with this?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    Bingo. There ya go Cat, he said it. Welfare, a non-permanent system that actually does ween participants off in a set amount of time and gives benefits for becoming independent is a bigger problem than a family that receives almost limitless charity because they won't every stop having kids until one of them dries up or dies.

    Welfare Queens are a myth based around some mythical woman Reagan created. It's an incredibly rare circumstance that involves fraud of the highest order to happen.

    I said what? I said "welfare queen"? Cat accused me of racism, is that what you are saying? If you automatically think of a black woman when someone says welfare queen then you should examine your own prejudices. I would venture the issue is more prevalent in rural white areas if anything. Welfare queen and trailer trash seem to go hand in hand to me.

    ryuprecht on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    So let me get this straight: despite the fact that these people have about 12 more kids than are economically feasible under a single middle-class income, and thus must recieving a shitton of cash from the community, far more than 95% of familys on welfare, you support them and find them responsible people because it's not actually welfare per se?

    You do realize they probably recieve a lot of money because nobody wants a family of 17 crazies on the street right?

    We've already discussed the economic feasibility part, and it was shown that it's most certainly possible. Are you refuting that? If so, please put forth your argument instead of taking it as given.

    In general though, your position ignores the fact that the "community" in this case is full of people who share their beliefs. It's highly unlikely they donate and support the family to keep the crazies off the street, and much more likely they do so because they agree with/support their large family desires.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Here's a more detailed one: Gallup.

    Watching trends since the mid-90's, there's an overall move toward decreased support and increased desire to overturn Roe v Wade.

    This is getting off-topic, but I wish you'd stop using such generalized terms: according to the Gallup chart, the "legal under any circumstances" category dipped from 32% in 1995 to 26% in 2007, but was actually pretty stable from 1996-2007, with a 1% general increase. Which I assume is insignificant. Based on the chart you provided, there was a dip in 1995 in "legal under any circumstances" but no significant changes in "totally illegal" and "mostly okay." Oh, and by the way, "legal under any circumstances" is close to but still larger than "illegal under any circumstances."

    tl;dr - Gallup says American public opinion on abortion is, in fact, remarkably stable.
    Elkamil wrote: »
    What does abortion have to do with this?

    Not much. Sorry!

    Zalbinion on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    Yes, it is getting off-topic.

    Hint hint.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote:
    I said what? I said "welfare queen"? Cat accused me of racism, is that what you are saying? If you automatically think of a black woman when someone says welfare queen then you should examine your own prejudices. I would venture the issue is more prevalent in rural white areas if anything. Welfare queen and trailer trash seem to go hand in hand to me.

    You made a fairly surface-level distinction between these people, a family you seem to support, and an economic fairy tale which you reject. The problem is that there's no real distinction between the two. The case has been made that, not only are they a charity case, they do actually receive government financial aid.

    There's also the concept that, you know, instead of endlessly funding a family that won't stop fucking, that charity could go towards people who are in dire straights through no fault of their own. Maybe if the churches and the citizens cut the Duggars off, they'd stop, and the charity could help out deserving individuals.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    So let me get this straight: despite the fact that these people have about 12 more kids than are economically feasible under a single middle-class income, and thus must recieving a shitton of cash from the community, far more than 95% of familys on welfare, you support them and find them responsible people because it's not actually welfare per se?

    You do realize they probably recieve a lot of money because nobody wants a family of 17 crazies on the street right?

    We've already discussed the economic feasibility part, and it was shown that it's most certainly possible. Are you refuting that? If so, please put forth your argument instead of taking it as given.

    In general though, your position ignores the fact that the "community" in this case is full of people who share their beliefs. It's highly unlikely they donate and support the family to keep the crazies off the street, and much more likely they do so because they agree with/support their large family desires.

    Oh, that's a dirty fucking lie, and you're a dirty fucking liar. It wasn't shown to be possible because all of the numbers were based off conjectures. We have no fucking clue how much money they make, so we don't know.

    What we do know is that they receive quite a bit of help. With that in mind, it could be called possible. However, I could afford the baby grand and French horns I've had my eyes on for a while with quite a bit of help, but it doesn't make it any less selfish or stupid to go out and buy those with money that isn't technically mine.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Greetings Penny Arcade Forums

    - Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    I've been following this topic and I find it very interesting, so much so that I've decided to post my opinion on the matter because I feel it's rather relevant. (To the topic and to my current situation)

    First, a little history on myself:

    I'm an Evangelical literalist (weather or not that is the same as a "fundie" or weather I'm just picking at semantics is neither here or there I suppose). I'm a housewife, 23 years of age and married. My husband is a 25 year old technical consultant for Dell. We don't have any children yet. My husband and I have recently decided that we're as ready as we can be and to dump the birth control and let God decide what he wants for us.

    After reading this topic, I find myself thinking "Could I honestly keep doing this after 5 kids, could I have 12 and trust in God that we would be able to provide for them." And the answer to that is unconditionally "no". Now, that is not to say that I don't trust in God or anything but I can't help but be reminded that this isn't the Old Testament time any more, and He does not have as much of an influence over things as He did (or as people think) - new covenant and all.

    My opinion is that one cannot possibly give the same -quality- of care to the 12th or 16th child as was received by the 1st. Once you reach a certain number, children no longer are individuals and instead become a "unit" with a very different structure as a 2,3 or 4 child family. It is bordering on neglectful to allow the older to care for the younger in the way that this family appears to be doing. I personally consider it more beneficial for the children to give them the highest possible quality of life you can manage. You just can't do this with that many.

    There is nothing in The Bible that speaks negatively against birth control. Now I know that most modern forms of it are indeed just that, modern inventions. Prophylactics were invented some time during the 1700's etc. However I don't think that it is going against God's will to want the best for your family. After all, we were told to be good stewards as well as to go forth and multiply.

    My husband and I waited, if we thought that birth control was wrong and didn't use it then we might already have a child that we weren't ready for financially or emotionally. I think that it is the parents responsibility to make sure that they're in a good situation before even allowing that possibility - something that the use of contraception provides us.

    On to the matter of how they are raising their children - with "traditional" gender roles and the like.

    Patriarchal society is a human invention, and throughout our history it has worked because there are certain jobs that men are more physically and mentally capable of than women and vice versa. That holds true today, but to a far lesser extent as we are no longer warrior / hunter gatherer in nature.

    I think that denying those little girls a proper education is a horrible thing to do personally. On the same merit, I think that people who walk about spouting things like "A woman is nothing unless she works!" are on the same level as those that said we were nothing unless we were married 50 years ago. The women's liberation movement happened for a reason, to give us a choice. If a woman -chooses- to be a wife and mother that position should be just as honored as if she chooses to be a high powered exec. in New York or somesuch.

    The important word here is "choice" - and it appears that their daughters are not being allowed to make their own choices.

    Anyway - enough of my ramblings. I just thought you might all want to hear that not all "Closed minded, right wing, truck driving, Wal-Mart Shopping, gun toting, hillbilly, Christian Conservative Republicans" hold this point of view on procreation. :D

    Edit: - Blah weird forums, anyway I hope it's right this time

    Dreya on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    Anyway - enough of my ramblings. I just thought you might all want to hear that not all "Closed minded, right wing, truck driving, Wal-Mart Shopping, gun toting, hillbilly, Christian Conservative Republicans" hold this point of view on procreation. :D

    We know. Quiverfulls are a special kind of...well, they're special.

    Good luck with having a kid.

    moniker on
  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    There is nothing in The Bible that speaks negatively against birth control.

    Well of course not, they didn't have these crazy new methods of birth control, like pulling out back then.

    Snarfmaster on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    After reading this topic, I find myself thinking "Could I honestly keep doing this after 5 kids, could I have 12 and trust in God that we would be able to provide for them." And the answer to that is unconditionally "no". Now, that is not to say that I don't trust in God or anything but I can't help but be reminded that this isn't the Old Testament time any more, and He does not have as much of an influence over things as He did (or as people think) - new covenant and all.

    My opinion is that one cannot possibly give the same -quality- of care to the 12th or 16th child as was received by the 1st. Once you reach a certain number, children no longer are individuals and instead become a "unit" with a very different structure as a 2,3 or 4 child family. It is bordering on neglectful to allow the older to care for the younger in the way that this family appears to be doing. I personally consider it more beneficial for the children to give them the highest possible quality of life you can manage. You just can't do this with that many.

    This is, I think, the biggest problem with having that many children, and why so many of us are naturally repelled by it. People only have so much time, resources, and attention they can devote, and I don't see how the parents in the OP could possibly treat any one of their children as an individual, rather than a cog in the machine.

    Think back to your childhood. What if your parents could only devote even 1/3 (assuming you were in a family with 5 children, just to be safe) of the time and energy to you that they did? Because that's what's happening here.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Dreya wrote: »
    Anyway - enough of my ramblings. I just thought you might all want to hear that not all "Closed minded, right wing, truck driving, Wal-Mart Shopping, gun toting, hillbilly, Christian Conservative Republicans" hold this point of view on procreation. :D

    We know. Quiverfulls are a special kind of...well, they're special.

    Good luck with having a kid.

    Awww thank you very much.

    Dreya on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Oh, that's a dirty fucking lie, and you're a dirty fucking liar. It wasn't shown to be possible because all of the numbers were based off conjectures. We have no fucking clue how much money they make, so we don't know.

    What we do know is that they receive quite a bit of help. With that in mind, it could be called possible. However, I could afford the baby grand and French horns I've had my eyes on for a while with quite a bit of help, but it doesn't make it any less selfish or stupid to go out and buy those with money that isn't technically mine.

    You're getting pissy.

    You asserted it's not possible. There was a discussion where that was refuted. We didn't discuss how often, how many people, or what, but that it is possible to surive on $5000 per person, even less due to economies of scale.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    On to the matter of how they are raising their children - with "traditional" gender roles and the like.

    Patriarchal society is a human invention, and throughout our history it has worked because there are certain jobs that men are more physically and mentally capable of than women and vice versa. That holds true today, but to a far lesser extent as we are no longer warrior / hunter gatherer in nature.

    I respectfully disagree. First of all, both men and women were both hunters and gatherers, and gender had nothing to do with it. Secondly, there's no such thing as a job that either gender is physically or mentally incapable of performing--that is, jobs don't rely upon your reproductive organs. True, some tasks are much more physically demanding than others, and women (at least in our culture) tend not to have the same skeleto-muscular structure as men, but this doesn't mean that all women are disqualified from a certain job or vice versa---rather, it's simply that some jobs have physical requirements that fewer women qualify for.

    Patriarchy is a human invention, although it was never necessary for society to function and is something we should strive to eliminate today because of its detrimental effects on women.

    Zalbinion on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Oh, that's a dirty fucking lie, and you're a dirty fucking liar. It wasn't shown to be possible because all of the numbers were based off conjectures. We have no fucking clue how much money they make, so we don't know.

    What we do know is that they receive quite a bit of help. With that in mind, it could be called possible. However, I could afford the baby grand and French horns I've had my eyes on for a while with quite a bit of help, but it doesn't make it any less selfish or stupid to go out and buy those with money that isn't technically mine.

    You're getting pissy.

    You asserted it's not possible. There was a discussion where that was refuted. We didn't discuss how often, how many people, or what, but that it is possible to surive on $5000 per person, even less due to economies of scale.

    I thought he was earning a middle-income salary, not $100 grand.

    moniker on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Oh, that's a dirty fucking lie, and you're a dirty fucking liar. It wasn't shown to be possible because all of the numbers were based off conjectures. We have no fucking clue how much money they make, so we don't know.

    What we do know is that they receive quite a bit of help. With that in mind, it could be called possible. However, I could afford the baby grand and French horns I've had my eyes on for a while with quite a bit of help, but it doesn't make it any less selfish or stupid to go out and buy those with money that isn't technically mine.

    You're getting pissy.

    You asserted it's not possible. There was a discussion where that was refuted. We didn't discuss how often, how many people, or what, but that it is possible to surive on $5000 per person, even less due to economies of scale.

    But we don't actually know how much they make, so how much it takes for a person to survive on a yearly basis means nothing until we have that information. What we do know, however, and this is factual, is that they receive subsidy from a variety of sources. This implies that they can't make it on their own, and we can extrapolate that they are not self-sufficient, so the point hasn't been refuted.

    Also, I'm getting pissy because you're getting progressively more obtuse as the discussion continues.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Dreya wrote: »
    On to the matter of how they are raising their children - with "traditional" gender roles and the like.

    Patriarchal society is a human invention, and throughout our history it has worked because there are certain jobs that men are more physically and mentally capable of than women and vice versa. That holds true today, but to a far lesser extent as we are no longer warrior / hunter gatherer in nature.

    I respectfully disagree. First of all, both men and women were both hunters and gatherers, and gender had nothing to do with it. Secondly, there's no such thing as a job that either gender is physically or mentally incapable of performing--that is, jobs don't rely upon your reproductive organs. True, some tasks are much more physically demanding than others, and women (at least in our culture) tend not to have the same skeleto-muscular structure as men, but this doesn't mean that all women are disqualified from a certain job or vice versa---rather, it's simply that some jobs have physical requirements that fewer women qualify for.

    Patriarchy is a human invention, although it was never necessary for society to function and is something we should strive to eliminate today because of its detrimental effects on women.

    You make a good point. What I meant was that there are certain jobs more suited to men and more suited to women due to the gender differences in physical (namely upper body) strength and things like language processing. I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such. Not to say this trend holds true for every single individual out there but I believe that these gender differences are probably a rather large contributing factor to why society has traditionally been patriarchal.

    Today, I agree completely that it's a decremental thing and should be done away with. In my situation it just happened to be that my husband is more highly skilled than I am, and so works in a more highly paid field than I could (currently) - which is why I will be at home with the kids. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. I think that whoever is making the most should continue to do so when kids come into the picture, and the other partner should stay home whoever that may be. Strangers raising your kids for you = bad idea.

    Anyway I got off on a tangent didn't I.

    Dreya on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote:
    I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such.

    That's a social construct, there's no biology behind it. Much of it has to do with how we train our children, like playing with certain toys, or in school, giving boys and girls different types of mental performance tasks that enforce and strengthen certain types of thinking.

    It's as simple as pushing boys towards rough play and girls towards cooperative play. Without it, there'd be no appreciable intellectual difference between adult men and women, and the only thing making a difference would be reproductive organs.

    Edit:
    Dreya wrote:
    In my situation it just happened to be that my husband is more highly skilled than I am, and so works in a more highly paid field that I could (currently) - which is why I will be at home with the kids. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. I think that whoever is making the most should continue to do so when kids come into the picture, and the other partner should stay home whoever that may be.

    Actually, in this society, if your husband chooses to take a bunch of time off to spend it with the kids, his dedication to his family would be seen as a great boon, and he would likely get recognized for it "at the office." If a woman does the same thing, however, she is seen as not having enough of a commitment to her job, and will likely never see a promotion, raise, anything like that.

    There's a huge gender double standard in employment and families and such.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote:
    I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such.

    That's a social construct, there's no biology behind it. Much of it has to do with how we train our children, like playing with certain toys, or in school, giving boys and girls different types of mental performance tasks that enforce and strengthen certain types of thinking.

    It's as simple as pushing boys towards rough play and girls towards cooperative play. Without it, there'd be no appreciable intellectual difference between adult men and women, and the only thing making a difference would be reproductive organs.

    Are there cross-cultural studies to that effect, or is that supposition? I mean, there are brain chemistry differences between men and women.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Are there cross-cultural studies to that effect, or is that supposition? I mean, there are brain chemistry differences between men and women.

    ...And those same brain chemistry differences can be caused by experience, i.e. culture, rather than genetics.

    Unless you can tie a certain behavior, biochemical, or other human trait to a particular gendered gene or organ, then you can't really pin it down definitively to an innate sex difference.

    Zalbinion on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote:
    I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such.

    That's a social construct, there's no biology behind it. Much of it has to do with how we train our children, like playing with certain toys, or in school, giving boys and girls different types of mental performance tasks that enforce and strengthen certain types of thinking.

    It's as simple as pushing boys towards rough play and girls towards cooperative play. Without it, there'd be no appreciable intellectual difference between adult men and women, and the only thing making a difference would be reproductive organs.

    Edit:
    Dreya wrote:
    In my situation it just happened to be that my husband is more highly skilled than I am, and so works in a more highly paid field that I could (currently) - which is why I will be at home with the kids. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. I think that whoever is making the most should continue to do so when kids come into the picture, and the other partner should stay home whoever that may be.

    Actually, in this society, if your husband chooses to take a bunch of time off to spend it with the kids, his dedication to his family would be seen as a great boon, and he would likely get recognized for it "at the office." If a woman does the same thing, however, she is seen as not having enough of a commitment to her job, and will likely never see a promotion, raise, anything like that.

    There's a huge gender double standard in employment and families and such.

    That is not correct. The hormonal systems of males and females are very different. If you want proof look at how similar prepubescent children are and how hormonal changes during puberty is when the sexes start seperating. Hormones are a primary catalyst in brain development and function. I'm not saying the state in the pot above is true(I think it's BS) but don't pretend the only physical difference between men and women are penises and vaginas.

    EDIT: Others have repeated that already for the msto part. Again like the Evo Psych argument in the other thread seperating culture and biology is pretty damn hard when it comes to behavior.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dreya wrote:
    I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such.

    That's a social construct, there's no biology behind it. Much of it has to do with how we train our children, like playing with certain toys, or in school, giving boys and girls different types of mental performance tasks that enforce and strengthen certain types of thinking.

    It's as simple as pushing boys towards rough play and girls towards cooperative play. Without it, there'd be no appreciable intellectual difference between adult men and women, and the only thing making a difference would be reproductive organs.

    Are there cross-cultural studies to that effect, or is that supposition? I mean, there are brain chemistry differences between men and women.

    That's a myth as well. There's only one innate difference between men and women when it comes to the brain, and that's the size of the corpus callosum. Women have a larger one, but all it is is a strip of white matter that connects the two halves of the brain; there seems to be little change caused by the size disparity. The chemistry is identical, and is only changed through conditioning and learning due to the plasticity of the brain.

    The most interesting cultural study I've seen shows that women in the Middle East have much better spatial reasoning than men, something that is generally reversed in the West. They speculate that this is due to rug weaving and the intricate patterns that they use.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I did a huge study on gender role socialization in pre-collage years ago - I wish I remembered more of it. There certainly are societal constructs that allow for certain kinds of behavior in boys and girls but a lot of it is hard-wired into us. Human beings self-segregate anyway. Children end up imposing these differences on themselves even if there are no external factors pushing them one way or the other.

    Observing brain patterns of males and females doing the same activity are strikingly different also. Females tended to think from different areas of their brain. There are biological differences between the genders, it's not just external "plumbing" as it were. We can argue nature vs nurture until the cows come home but the fact still stands that the cultures that make up America as we know it are for the most part patriarchal in background, regardless of the cause.

    Dreya on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dreya wrote:
    I.E. Women tend to be better at linguistics and abstract social concepts (like empathy) and men tend to be better at spacial mathematics and such.

    That's a social construct, there's no biology behind it. Much of it has to do with how we train our children, like playing with certain toys, or in school, giving boys and girls different types of mental performance tasks that enforce and strengthen certain types of thinking.

    It's as simple as pushing boys towards rough play and girls towards cooperative play. Without it, there'd be no appreciable intellectual difference between adult men and women, and the only thing making a difference would be reproductive organs.

    Are there cross-cultural studies to that effect, or is that supposition? I mean, there are brain chemistry differences between men and women.

    That's a myth as well. There's only one innate difference between men and women when it comes to the brain, and that's the size of the corpus colosum. Women have a larger one, but all it is is a strip of white matter that connects the two halves of the brain; there seems to be little change caused by the size disparity. The chemistry is identical, and is only changed through conditioning and learning due to the plasticity of the brain.

    The most interesting cultural study I've seen shows that women in the Middle East have much better spatial reasoning than men, something that is generally reversed in the West. They speculate that this is due to rug weaving and the intricate patterns that they use.

    So you're saying that, at birth, human brains are identical across sex?

    I'm just curious how they've established this.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    EDIT: Others have repeated that already for the msto part. Again like the Evo Psych argument in the other thread seperating culture and biology is pretty damn hard when it comes to behavior.

    Also at the risk of duplicating the evo-psych thread, cultural anthropology has done a fantastic job of showing us how incredibly varied and powerful human cultures are at influencing behaviors, to the point where it seems pretty obvious to me that we should err on the side of cultural influence unless specific connections between particular genes/organs and behaviors can be demonstrated.
    Dreya wrote: »
    Observing brain patterns of males and females doing the same activity are strikingly different also. Females tended to think from different areas of their brain. There are biological differences between the genders, it's not just external "plumbing" as it were. We can argue nature vs nurture until the cows come home but the fact still stands that the cultures that make up America as we know it are for the most part patriarchal in background, regardless of the cause.

    The thing is, correlation isn't causation. The fact that patriarchy is widespread doesn't make it genetic. The fact that males and females use different parts of their brains to think doesn't mean that is genetic; it could just as easily be subtle yet powerful cultural conditioning acting on girls differently than boys, which isn't identified as such by the investigators.

    That fact is that humans--like chimps and gorillas--are information sponges at birth, and they absorb a tremendous amount of information in their early years that's precisely geared towards teaching them how to behave in society.

    Zalbinion on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    That is not correct. The hormonal systems of males and females are very different. If you want proof look at how similar prepubescent children are and how hormonal changes during puberty is when the sexes start seperating. Hormones are a primary catalyst in brain development and function. I'm not saying the state in the pot above is true(I think it's BS) but don't pretend the only physical difference between men and women are penises and vaginas.

    The sex hormones like testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone have an affect on certain aspects of personality, sexual attraction (specifically, size of the hypothalamus), the endocrine system, and stuff like that, but there's no real difference between men and women on a level above basic function for the most part.

    For instance, none of the difference in men and women's brains seem to have any affect on social behavior, computation, processing speed, or anything else. The one thing that seems to really be different is mood. If you charted out "mood," men generally stay in a depressed state of mood chemicals, and have some slight dips and jumps here and there. Women tend to stay in an elevated state of mood chemicals, but have proportionally bigger dips and jumps here and there.

    That has nothing to do with actually being sad, happy, depressed, anxious, etc. but instead the intensity of those feelings.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote:
    So you're saying that, at birth, human brains are identical across sex?

    Basically, yes. It's not until puberty that any real differences start to happen, but it's very difficult not to conflate culture and biology when looking at puberty. Zalbinion pointed out why most modern research tends towards nurture over nature in this instance.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote:
    Children end up imposing these differences on themselves even if there are no external factors pushing them one way or the other.

    I don't see how any researchers could control for all cultural variables, short of shoving some kids in an isolation tank from birth and seeing what they do.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote:
    So you're saying that, at birth, human brains are identical across sex?

    Basically, yes. It's not until puberty that any real differences start to happen, but it's very difficult not to conflate culture and biology when looking at puberty. Zalbinion pointed out why most modern research tends towards nurture over nature in this instance.

    There's plenty of interesting info in this area but little concrete evidence. Statisitcs in the US don't show an enourmous difference in overall intelligence levels between males and females. Overall males are more likely to tend to the extremes than women are i.e there are more male super geniuses but there also more male idiots. That's why I agree most of the differences in skillsets are likely to be nuture over nature.

    nexuscrawler on
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote:
    Children end up imposing these differences on themselves even if there are no external factors pushing them one way or the other.

    I don't see how any researchers could control for all cultural variables, short of shoving some kids in an isolation tank from birth and seeing what they do.

    The scary thing about that is - it has been done. I've found two such studies on children raised in isolation "tank" like environments (it was actually a white room with nothing but food and water) that were performed during the 1950's.

    Now I haven't been able to find references online unfortunately, these sources were from books that again I can't remember the name of because it was years ago. (How credible of me eh?)

    They hardly had the technology or the understanding of the way brain chemistry works as we do today but these sorts of studies have been done. There's been a fascination with cases of socially isolated children for decades, there's a lot of material out there on it.


    - Side note - this is waaaaaay off topic from the OP.

    Dreya on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    - Side note - this is waaaaaay off topic from the OP.

    True, but isn't it so much more interesting?

    Zalbinion on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    D&D is like a circle. It has infinite opportunities for tangents, and starts to get more interesting when they crop up.

    moniker on
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Yes - it is more interesting. I wasn't sure if it was against the rules to go off topic here, I know it is on a lot of other boards. If it's not well then carry on :)

    Dreya on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Dreya wrote: »
    Dreya wrote:
    Children end up imposing these differences on themselves even if there are no external factors pushing them one way or the other.

    I don't see how any researchers could control for all cultural variables, short of shoving some kids in an isolation tank from birth and seeing what they do.

    The scary thing about that is - it has been done. I've found two such studies on children raised in isolation "tank" like environments (it was actually a white room with nothing but food and water) that were performed during the 1950's.

    Now I haven't been able to find references online unfortunately, these sources were from books that again I can't remember the name of because it was years ago. (How credible of me eh?)

    They hardly had the technology or the understanding of the way brain chemistry works as we do today but these sorts of studies have been done. There's been a fascination with cases of socially isolated children for decades, there's a lot of material out there on it.


    - Side note - this is waaaaaay off topic from the OP.

    I mean, Harry Harlowe and the tarry cloth mother, Baby Albert, some pretty horrendous things have been done in the name of psychology. Unfortunately, they don't tend to have a whole lot of value or validity in most cases, and not to be contrarian, but I just wouldn't trust studies like that in general. Modern research just tends to be so much... cleaner.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • DreyaDreya Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Yes - I wouldn't trust those studies either but my point was that they have been done.

    Dreya on
Sign In or Register to comment.