Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

1235713

Posts

  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Yann wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    .....Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    This is really the big one though, isn't it. We are basically saying, through most of history, in all major cultures, there has been this huge social force suppressing female sexuality. What could possibly be the reason for this? What motive are we backing that statement with? I mean it doesn't seem to fit in with the "male ideal" of sexual promiscuity, rather the opposite.

    Males have suppressed female sexuality for many reasons. They want to ensure that their children are their children for the purpose of lineage. If a woman has multiple partners, it is obvious who the mother is but it is not obvious who the father is.

    The sexual suppression is also a means of control. If they are off having sex, they aren't doing the dishes and minding the house and the kids of whatever.

    Additionally, no man wants to be made a cuckold. So, as long as the woman has sex with only the husband and no one else, then they are in the clear.

    So males don't like when their women have other partners. Correction, males REALLY don't like it, to the point where it has shaped our societies in pretty huge ways.

    It makes sense in an evolutionary perspective, we want out own genetic line to live on. But this went on before we had any concept of evolution or even hereditary traits. Sure there was probably an underlying understanding that offspring resembled the parents, but not to the point that it would become such a huge force in society. Surely the idea to "preserve ones genetic lineage" is not one that most humans would have naturally, let alone use to shape their life and values? So how come it is there? Is it a subconscious instinct? Is it in our genes to repress female sexuality?

    Yann on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base human desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base male desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    Fixed.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base male desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    Fixed.
    Hahahahahahahaha

    Seriously?

    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base male desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    Fixed.

    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base male desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    Fixed.

    No it's not. You fundamentally changed what was being said, showing a total intellectual dishonesty.
    In what he said, the women were being subjugated because the men happened to have the high ground. In matriarchal societies, it's the other way 'round.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I don't know, to be honest. All I know is that throughout history groups have always tried to subjugate other groups that are easily recognizable as different from them.

    Men subjugated women, rich people subjugated poor people, white people subjugated black people, etc.

    I don't think it's in humans genes to repress female sexuality. I think it's more a base human desire to be dominant over other humans. Fully controlling women, which also means fully controlling their sexuality, places men in the dominant position. And generally speaking, being in the dominant role causes you to reap many benefits.

    That does make a lot of sense, thanks. As for domination being a male characteristics, there is a lot evidence linking it to testosterone. For example look at female hyenas. The female pack leaders develop huge amounts of testosterone, sometimes leading to their own death during childbirth since they haven't developed the required female physique.

    Yann on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    I can't speak for matriarchies.

    Men are more dominant than women on average because they have more testosterone in their blood. This doesn't mean there aren't women who are comfortable with being dominant. Just like there are women who are taller than the average man, there are women who are more dominant than the average men. But the average man is taller and more dominant than the average woman, and as a result matriarchies are the (hypothetical) exception, not the norm. From wikipedia:
    Though some modern anthropologists and sociologists assert that there are no known examples of human matriarchies from any point in history,[2][3][4][5][6][7] there is no consensus about this question. Encyclopædia Britannica, siding with the anthropologists and sociologists who made the aforementioned assertion, lists matriarchy as a "hypothetical social system[8](best exemplified by present-day Jamaica)", yet some examples of matrifocal societies are listed in "Existing matrifocal societies" section of this article. The Britannica article goes on to note, "The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed."[9]

    They do exist in mythology and fantasy though. Drow society in Forgotten Realms, the Amazons, the Aegean culture-zone.
    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    I never said that.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    I can't speak for matriarchies.

    Men are more dominant than women on average because they have more testosterone in their blood. This doesn't mean there aren't women who are comfortable with being dominant. Just like there are women who are taller than the average man, there are women who are more dominant than the average men. But the average man is taller and more dominant than the average woman.
    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    I never said that.

    This is the same mistake you've made already.

    The average can be non-significant while the individual differences can be very significant.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    I can't speak for matriarchies.

    Men are more dominant than women on average because they have more testosterone in their blood. This doesn't mean there aren't women who are comfortable with being dominant. Just like there are women who are taller than the average man, there are women who are more dominant than the average men. But the average man is taller and more dominant than the average woman.
    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    I never said that.

    This is the same mistake you've made already.

    The average can be non-significant while the individual differences can be very significant.

    The individual differences do not come into the equation when you're talking about the entirety of the evolutionary history of homo sapiens. We are talking about the subjugation of women by men in pretty much every single human society that has been in existence (exceptions do exist). This cannot be explained by differences in individuals, but it can be explained by the gender average.

    Besides, you're ignoring social programming as a reinforcement of genetic disposition. When you take that into account - i.e. men being encouraged to be dominant and women passive - the male dominance becomes significant, and turns out to be a very plausible explanation for why men have almost always been dominant over women.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    My opinion on this sort of discussion can be summed up thusly:

    Biology is not necessarily politically correct.

    The answer to a lot of these questions is not something I'm sure about yet, since its so difficult to test for these attributes in a way that is both accurate and totally free of outside bias. Males and females are clearly biologically quite different, different organs, different hormones, different brain structure and so on. It seems unlikely to me that with these biological differences in place males and females would behave in exactly the same way, particularly when that is not what is seen among animals. ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true. This is poor scientific method.

    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place. Honestly I think that as a species we're too stupid to deal with this sort of information in an intelligent way, and I think males and females should be assumed to be the same because it promotes and equitable society. This whole males being good at spatial reasoning --> males are naturally inclined towards engineering --> males and females should have different school curriculum is not a train of thought I particularly like even if its true, especially because of its potential for abuse.

    I will give my kids, regardless of their gender, plenty of stuffed animals and plenty of building blocks. They can play with the ones they want.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    I can't speak for matriarchies.

    Men are more dominant than women on average because they have more testosterone in their blood. This doesn't mean there aren't women who are comfortable with being dominant. Just like there are women who are taller than the average man, there are women who are more dominant than the average men. But the average man is taller and more dominant than the average woman.
    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    I never said that.

    This is the same mistake you've made already.

    The average can be non-significant while the individual differences can be very significant.

    The individual differences do not come into the equation when you're talking about the entirety of the evolutionary history of homo sapiens. We are talking about the subjugation of women by men in pretty much every single human society that has been in existence (exceptions do exist). This cannot be explained by differences in individuals, but it can be explained by the gender average.

    Besides, you're ignoring social programming as a reinforcement of genetic disposition. When you take that into account - i.e. men being encouraged to be dominant and women passive - the male dominance becomes significant, and turns out to be a very plausible explanation for why men have almost always been dominant over women.

    You pulled that out of your ass, that's why. You insisted on it earlier and seem to be simply using it when we prove that it is social conditioning.
    You are basically saying that Jews were "encouraged" to become bankers because we are naturally disposed to it, and you don't want to insist on that. I will find you.

    One of these "rare exceptions" you speak about is the fact that the world's biggest empire was formed by a woman's leadership. With that type of fact, I'd consider making male aggression the exception.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Seriously, you've never met/seen/heard of a woman who was more comfortable being in control over the people around her? You think every matriarchy was based on... what? Desire to nurture?

    I can't speak for matriarchies.

    Men are more dominant than women on average because they have more testosterone in their blood. This doesn't mean there aren't women who are comfortable with being dominant. Just like there are women who are taller than the average man, there are women who are more dominant than the average men. But the average man is taller and more dominant than the average woman.
    So white women didn't participate in the subjugation of black people, and rich women didn't participate in the subjugation of the poor?

    I never said that.

    This is the same mistake you've made already.

    The average can be non-significant while the individual differences can be very significant.

    The individual differences do not come into the equation when you're talking about the entirety of the evolutionary history of homo sapiens. We are talking about the subjugation of women by men in pretty much every single human society that has been in existence (exceptions do exist). This cannot be explained by differences in individuals, but it can be explained by the gender average.

    Besides, you're ignoring social programming as a reinforcement of genetic disposition. When you take that into account - i.e. men being encouraged to be dominant and women passive - the male dominance becomes significant, and turns out to be a very plausible explanation for why men have almost always been dominant over women.

    You pulled that out of your ass, that's why. You insisted on it earlier and seem to be simply using it when we prove that it is social conditioning.
    You are basically saying that Jews were "encouraged" to become bankers because we are naturally disposed to it, and you don't want to insist on that. I will find you.

    One of these "rare exceptions" you speak about is the fact that the world's biggest empire was formed by a woman's leadership. With that type of fact, I'd consider making male aggression the exception.

    lol, oh he "basically said" that Jews were predisposed to become bankers? Play fair here, if you can't call him on the arguments he's making dont make up ones that he clearly isn't making.

    And also I dont see how the brits being dominant has anything to do with his point. He is saying that over human history male leaders have been the overwhelming majority. This is true. I have noticed this myself, and its a fair question to ask why that happens. There are exceptions, and that one of these exceptions was particularly successful doesn't factor into this. He's not saying men are better leaders, just more likely to become leaders in the first place.

    I'm just going to distill this down, since I havn't been reading the thread and I'm not saying that I'm agreeing with everything ege is saying here.

    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    You are basically saying that Jews were "encouraged" to become bankers because we are naturally disposed to it, and you don't want to insist on that. I will find you.

    D: Are you... are you threatening to find me? I hope not.

    I never said anything about race. In fact, genetic research has found that two men of different races are far more similar to each other than a man and a woman of the same race. The genetic differences between races is utterly negligible compared to the genetic differences between males and females.
    One of these "rare exceptions" you speak about is the fact that the world's biggest empire was formed by a woman's leadership. With that type of fact, I'd consider making male aggression the exception.

    That is only one example. You would consider making male aggression the exception based on that one example? Bwahaha.

    Besides, it basically strawmans my argument; I never said there are no extraordinary women in history. Furthermore, that empire was still patriarchal.

    I'll come back to this thread tomorrow.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So ege02 do you have any good sources on this dominance behavior?
    I mean most historians i have heard seem to agree with the theory brought up earlier that females were in a disadvantaged position in agricultural society since there physical strength was much more closely linked to the value of your contribution to society. So far I havn't seen you contradicting this so pointing out that most ancient agricultural societies, and later the due to in part christianity and the other patriarcal religions (formed during the aforementioned more agricultural period) simularily opressed, and only in the last century, hell saying it started 'for real' before the 50's-60's would probably be incorrect, have started to be treated equally. So your argument from history doesn't seem fair. And your argument from evolution, when not talking about other species who really vary greatly inbetween them aswell, have appeared to been pulled out of your ass, what arguments DO you have for this hypothesis of yours?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    There have been more male leaders because males have almost always controlled the ascension to political power.

    However, the question you have to ask is this: how did this domination of political leadership originate in the first place, and why? I refuse to believe it was simply an accident.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    There have been more male leaders because males have almost always controlled the ascension to political power.

    However, the question you have to ask is this: how did this domination of political leadership originate in the first place, and why? I refuse to believe it was simply an accident.

    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    And of course every scientist realizes that it would totally not make his career to prove something as major as this, so they all keep things silent.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    And of course every scientist realizes that it would totally not make his career to prove something as major as this, so they all keep things silent.

    Well, apparently all the scientists are just in on it together, because being the first to publish something as huge as that would be a tenured position wherever the fuck you want and a complimentary Porsche. This just seems wierd though with how the scientific community is predominately male in composition. Maybe they're just trying to get laid.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    Are you some sort of moron? Did you even read my post?

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    There have been more male leaders because males have almost always controlled the ascension to political power.

    However, the question you have to ask is this: how did this domination of political leadership originate in the first place, and why? I refuse to believe it was simply an accident.

    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    There's also the fact that all European and Asian cultures derive from Mesopotamia, a patriarchal society. This also explains why matriarchies were so common in Africa (before the Europeans decided killing black people in sport wars was fun). Despite this, Japan still started as a matriarchy.

    Ege, you said "social programming [is] a reinforcement of genetic disposition." Jews were "socially programmed" to become bankers.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    irt Tycho?
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    Are you some sort of moron? Did you even read my post?

    No, and yes. So what exactly is the gain for the scientific community in hiding these credible studies of yours from the media? Should I be taking your remarks about a shitstorm to mean some sort of societal collapse that the scientific community is nobly seeking to avert or what? Clarify your theory.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.

    Go ahead and cite them.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.

    Go ahead and cite them.

    It might be kind of hard, given that he's said the media is conservative in reporting them, understandable because the mind is so unexplored that it's good policy not to report a new finding until ten peer-reviewed repetitions of the study in a row show the same result.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Æthelred wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.

    Go ahead and cite them.

    It might be kind of hard, given that he's said the media is conservative in reporting them, understandable because the mind is so unexplored that it's good policy not to report a new finding until ten peer-reviewed repetitions of the study in a row show the same result.

    Except that very little brings ratings like controversy. Any news network that had access to credible studies showing that women are natively inferior at x, y and z would be shooting themselves in the foot not to publicize it. "Women biologically predetermined to suck at math, more at 11". There's no profit for the media in hiding this alleged research.

    Edit: On second thought violence works pretty impressively well too.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Seriously, we just went over how newspapers love this shit.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Yes, but the papers are the ones most accessible on the web, and they tend to be, in my experience, much more conservative. Most of the time, the articles aren't even about the studies themselves, but about the scientists conducting them in the context of "what's your latest project?"

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    There have been more male leaders because males have almost always controlled the ascension to political power.

    However, the question you have to ask is this: how did this domination of political leadership originate in the first place, and why? I refuse to believe it was simply an accident.

    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    There's also the fact that all European and Asian cultures derive from Mesopotamia, a patriarchal society. This also explains why matriarchies were so common in Africa (before the Europeans decided killing black people in sport wars was fun). Despite this, Japan still started as a matriarchy.

    Ege, you said "social programming [is] a reinforcement of genetic disposition." Jews were "socially programmed" to become bankers.
    Asian cultures derived from Mesopotamia? I am pretty sure that is incorrect considering how they developed agriculture independently (rice) while Europe did not (well unless you call Mesopotamia Europe, it exists in that "no mans land")

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well I'm leaving, and frankly I dont want to get tied up in this so called discussion.

    For the record, this is what I apparently said:
    So there's a conspiracy in modern science to trick society into incorrectly believing that women can be competent engineers? And the reason you can't cite any credible studies is because the conspirators keep them out of the media, so you can't reasonably be expected to support your claims?

    Here was my post
    My opinion on this sort of discussion can be summed up thusly:

    Biology is not necessarily politically correct.

    The answer to a lot of these questions is not something I'm sure about yet, since its so difficult to test for these attributes in a way that is both accurate and totally free of outside bias. Males and females are clearly biologically quite different, different organs, different hormones, different brain structure and so on. It seems unlikely to me that with these biological differences in place males and females would behave in exactly the same way, particularly when that is not what is seen among animals. ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true. This is poor scientific method.

    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place. Honestly I think that as a species we're too stupid to deal with this sort of information in an intelligent way, and I think males and females should be assumed to be the same because it promotes and equitable society. This whole males being good at spatial reasoning --> males are naturally inclined towards engineering --> males and females should have different school curriculum is not a train of thought I particularly like even if its true, especially because of its potential for abuse.

    I will give my kids, regardless of their gender, plenty of stuffed animals and plenty of building blocks. They can play with the ones they want.

    Please note that I used terms such as "I think ______" instead of "there is a modern conspiracy to trick society into believing _____". Note that I did not use the word conspiracy, or imply any such thing. I said many studies relating to this are not released to the media. This is true. Do you know why? Because these studies are common as muck, and there is no good reason to release a scientific study to the media unless it is very very important. Only idiots draw huge generalized conclusions about society as a whole from a single excersise in statistics, especially considing the wide variety of results that come from them. Note that I didn't say "Studies showing women to be stupid are kept out of the media by conspirators". In fact, I didn't even comment on what the results of those studies was (its not like I would know anyway, I'm not a psychologist).
    Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true. This is poor scientific method.
    From this you seem to assume some vast conspiracy, when I am pointing out that it is poor scientific method to come to a conclusion before you do the experiment. Note, like before, I'm not saying anything about conspiracies, women being kept out of engineering, or indeed anything that was in ViolentChemistry's reply.

    I start a post with
    The answer to a lot of these questions is not something I'm sure about yet, since its so difficult to test for these attributes in a way that is both accurate and totally free of outside bias.

    Notice how I emphasized that this was my opinion, and I dont have a large amount of trust for any studies done in this field because they are so difficult to do. Notice how I said I wasn't even sure about my own opinion on the matter yet!

    NOTICE HOW I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A CONSPIRACY TO KEEP WOMEN OUT OF ENGINEERING. I DIDN'T SAY A DAMN THING ABOUT SCIENTISTS HIDING ANYTHING.

    In conclusion, ViolentChemistry, you're a total fuckwad. Read my post, I've reread it several times, and I stand by it.


    Biology is not necessarily politically correct.
    Thats all I was saying, that was my entire argument. Please do not draw anything else from this, christ.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yes, but the papers are the ones most accessible on the web, and they tend to be, in my experience, much more conservative. Most of the time, the articles aren't even about the studies themselves, but about the scientists conducting them in the context of "what's your latest project?"

    Oddly in my experience it's generally the article that makes unsupported claims rather than the study itself, usually the findings and claims of the study itself aren't sufficiently exciting.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think I could agree that women would have a bigger place in authority if being pregnant didn't knock them out for six months and they didn't have to deal with sex-crazed males with libidos the size of Texas chasing them in the workplace. Didn't you know women are just a distraction during high-powered meetings - No Girls Allowed!

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    What does this mean? Who knows. There are actually lots of studies on this, however most are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm

    This is where you're wrong because studies 'showing' women to be more stupid / better at shopping than men are constantly in the newspapers.

    I meant credible studies, ones that are actually designed to learn things instead of causing a fuss. It isn't general practice to release the results of some random psych study to the media. However I shouldn't have said "most" since I dont actually know the proportions.

    Go ahead and cite them.

    It might be kind of hard, given that he's said the media is conservative in reporting them, understandable because the mind is so unexplored that it's good policy not to report a new finding until ten peer-reviewed repetitions of the study in a row show the same result.

    I didn't ask him to cite from the media. I asked him to cite those credible studies that get ignored. I assumed that he reads them in academic journals, but finds no mention of them in the media.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    ege has a point when he says that people have already made up their minds about this, society has made this decision without any sort of solid science to back it up from either side. Any science that goes against these views is immediately considered flawed, any that agrees is considered to be true.

    ...

    There are actually lots of studies on this, however many are not reported to the media because it would cause such a shit-storm, and because its pretty impossible to draw general conclusions from them in the first place.

    These are the claims you made. "Claims made" being something very different from "opinions stated". You never use the word conspiracy but if I go and describe a vessel that rides on four wheels and is powered by a gasoline-burning internal combustion engine which is operated from the inside as a means of conveyance it would be pretty retarded for me to flip out at you for just calling it a car. I'm not going to argue over opinions, that would also be retarded. I'm only arguing over claims.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Male leaders have been far, far more comman than female leaders over human history, and today. Why are males so much more likely to become leaders or large states than females?

    There have been more male leaders because males have almost always controlled the ascension to political power.

    However, the question you have to ask is this: how did this domination of political leadership originate in the first place, and why? I refuse to believe it was simply an accident.

    But this has already been covered, men were and typically maintained their position of power, often creating laws of social rules to bar women from entry, women could not be king, a woman could not be 'the man of the house'. And the reason it originated that way was in agriculture men have several advantages due to the genetic differences that do exist mainly in physique and childbirth.

    There's also the fact that all European and Asian cultures derive from Mesopotamia, a patriarchal society. This also explains why matriarchies were so common in Africa (before the Europeans decided killing black people in sport wars was fun). Despite this, Japan still started as a matriarchy.

    Ege, you said "social programming [is] a reinforcement of genetic disposition." Jews were "socially programmed" to become bankers.
    Asian cultures derived from Mesopotamia? I am pretty sure that is incorrect considering how they developed agriculture independently (rice) while Europe did not (well unless you call Mesopotamia Europe, it exists in that "no mans land")

    This may have been wrong because I was being lazy and used my own extrapolation instead of trying to look it up, but I assumed that Meso's position as the first major civilization and its location in the Middle East, just north of Africa, meant that the Europeans were those who traveled west from it and the Asians east.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them.
    For that matter, even if everyone providing statistics in the study told the truth (which I doubt they do), personal perception of what "counts" as sex or as sexual activity makes a big difference in the statistics.

    Man A: "Hmm, do I count Woman A as a sex partner, even though we didn't actually have sex? Well, she gave me head, so yeah, she counts."
    Woman A: "Should I count Man A as a sex partner? Well, I did give him a blowjob, once... but we didn't actually have sex, so no, he doesn't count."

    Man B: "Oh, I almost forgot about that drunk chick at the party... god, I don't even remember her name."
    Woman B: "Of course, I'm not counting that asshole who roofied me at that party - that wasn't sex, it was rape."

    Any halfway decent study would qualify what's being counted, which would help to reduce answers like the former, but wouldn't necessarily reduce differing answers like the latter by a great deal. Of course, if men and women didn't both labor under ridiculous sexual double standards, men and women would have approximately equal numbers overreporting and underreporting, so the averages would be within a reasonable margin of error.

    gtrmp on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh and there was also the claim that it's bad science to assume that a predictive tool doesn't work until it's been demonstrated to work on a consistent basis, but that's less interesting.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    D:D:D:

    It is not physically possible for a man to have sex with a woman without a woman also having sex. Women must have as much (straight) sex as men.

    Are you being dense on purpose?

    During a hundred day period, a man who goes and has sex with a hundred women has more partners than a woman who has sex with her boyfriend everyday for a hundred days.

    And for that one man, there must be ninety-nine guys who are having no sex. That is one hundred men with one hundred partners, and, wait for it, one hundred women with the same number. The average number of partners is one for both groups.

    Now I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, but the other ninety-nine guys weren't all abstinent. Hell, they probably had another encounter each between them. That makes a hundred and ninety-nine for the guys! But wait a second, who did they have sex with? Each other? No, with ninety-nine women. Or with one, it doesn't matter. It's still another ninety-nine points for the ladies.

    Your problem is that you are (surprise) treating the star players for the boys as each accounting for a large number of women, failing to realize that the exact damn same thing exists on the other side of the fence: most women are having sex with a handful of guys, with a handful having sex with a shitload.

    The average, or rather the mean number of sexual partners must mathematically be the same.*

    *
    Assuming the same number of men and women. That's not quite the case, especially when you look older, but that's a whole other piece of pie.

    Come to mention it, up to 35(?) or so guys outnumber girls, so really we have fewer partners on average.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.