Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

13468913

Posts

  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    There is one statement that if everyone understood and accepted it we'd have a lot less trouble with gender issues.

    Men and women ARE different, and they will always BE different.

    We should treat them equally, but we should not treat them the same.

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    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.
    Actually, I believe I heard on the news that the number of girls born outnumbers boy two to one or something, but this is a little young to count the in the stats.

    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
    ege02ege02 __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.

    No. If anything, the advent of agriculture largely eliminated the advantage that men genetically had over women in hunting in terms of strength (ability to throw heavy stuff such as rocks and spears at moving objects) and spatial reasoning (ability to find their way home after long hunting treks). With agriculture you no longer needed these.
    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.

    I already covered this. There are no known matriarchies in history. 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]

    Feel free to read the citations, in particular these two:

    6. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).
    7. Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.
    9. 'Matriarchy', Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.

    Moving on.
    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.

    There are no conspiracies. Stop shitting on the thread. I agree with you in a sense that if he doesn't have sources he shouldn't claim to have sources, but you're strawmanning here with the specific purpose of convoluting the discussion (lol conspiracy).
    Ege, you said "social programming [is] a reinforcement of genetic disposition." Jews were "socially programmed" to become bankers.

    No, I said "social programming generally reinforces genetic disposition." Furthermore, in the case of races, I went on to explain, the genetic dispositions are not noticeable. The differences between a Jewish man and a white man are so incredibly small, so it doesn't make sense to claim that Jews are socially programmed to become bankers. Which is why I didn't make the claim.
    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.

    I'm not going to disagree with you in your argument with Tycho, but you're wrong here. Controversy may sell in the short-run, but newspapers, due to the way the advertisement industry works, are primarily interested in long-term readership. If a paper was publishing research and pissing off large portions of its readers, it would be shooting itself in the foot. These footnotes and the sources they cite should provide a good explanation that dispel the myth that more readers/viewers = more profits for media.
    Adrien wrote:
    stuff

    I already replied to that on the last page.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There is one statement that if everyone understood and accepted it we'd have a lot less trouble with gender issues.

    Men and women ARE different, and they will always BE different.

    We should treat them equally, but we should not treat them the same.
    Outside of the bedroom context...why?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    You're sort of kinda close. For some reason that we actually don't know, more boys are born than girls— in the US it's about 105 boys to every 100 girls. However for a variety of reasons (some of these also inexplicable) boys die faster, and after around 35 (as I recall) women outnumber men.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    In case we needed any more evidence that you can't win a debate with an idiot.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Feel free to read the citations, in particular these two:

    6. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).
    7. Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.
    9. 'Matriarchy', Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.

    As for why, then, I do continue: I'm an intellectual masochist.

    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
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wait, last study I read, said that more girls were being born them men as of late (a reversal of the trend) because more and more people were having sex drunk, and having sex drunk lowers the chance of a Y chromosome or whatever.

    Of course, the study could have been bunk for all I know.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote:
    stuff

    I already replied to that on the last page.

    I see you brushing it off. I don't see where you reconciled with the fact that you made what was in effect a non-point and tried to treat it as evidence.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    In case we needed any more evidence that you can't win a debate with an idiot.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Feel free to read the citations, in particular these two:

    6. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).
    7. Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.
    9. 'Matriarchy', Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.

    As for why, then, I do continue: I'm an intellectual masochist.

    O_o

    Alright, whatever. If you're not interested in debating, we won't.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There is one statement that if everyone understood and accepted it we'd have a lot less trouble with gender issues.

    Men and women ARE different, and they will always BE different.

    We should treat them equally, but we should not treat them the same.
    Outside of the bedroom context...why?

    I'd like an answer to that, too. I treat people differently based on their personalities, after I get to know them, but just because of gender? Why?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote:
    stuff

    I already replied to that on the last page.

    I see you brushing it off. I don't see where you reconciled with the fact that you made what was in effect a non-point and tried to treat it as evidence.

    I will get back to you later.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    There is one statement that if everyone understood and accepted it we'd have a lot less trouble with gender issues.

    Men and women ARE different, and they will always BE different.

    We should treat them equally, but we should not treat them the same.
    Outside of the bedroom context...why?

    The Cat spent a significant amount of time arguing in another thread that biological mothers have a stronger link to the child from birth than biological fathers. Putting aside the validity of that argument, thats one way which they're different. Assuming she's right. (which I am in no position to dispute).

    Another example. Its a scientific fact that the average woman's body is more affected by the same amount of alcohol than the average man's is. There are exceptions, obviously. Should we say "fuck that!" and give women the same amount of alcohol, and wonder why they get more drunk?

    Another example. The average man, whether you like it or not, is far stronger, physically, than a woman, and has the capability to become much stronger without the use of drugs such as steroids. If I and my girlfriend each went to the gym and did a full heavy strength training workout for hours every other day, for months and months, I would get a HUGE benefit from it. So, as a result, workouts that women generally do, unless they are competing in a women's bodybuilder tournament, are more geared towards fitness rather than pure strength.

    She would get an equally huge benefit, but it would more likely be that she would become more toned, have better cardiovascular fitness, and such, whereas I would get all that, plus a huge increase in physical strength.

    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Wait, last study I read, said that more girls were being born them men as of late (a reversal of the trend) because more and more people were having sex drunk, and having sex drunk lowers the chance of a Y chromosome or whatever.

    Of course, the study could have been bunk for all I know.

    The CDC says in 2004 it was about 1.048 male to female.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Gender discrimination is not the only reason women don't become electricians.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Most men who aren't particularly strong COULD be if they put some effort in and worked out.

    Most women who are not strong do not have that option. They could get stronger, but if you took a man and woman of equal strength, and gave them the same strength training workout, the man would end up stronger at the end of it.

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Most men who aren't particularly strong COULD be if they put some effort in and worked out.

    Most women who are not strong do not have that option. They could get stronger, but if you took a man and woman of equal strength, and gave them the same strength training workout, the man would end up stronger at the end of it.

    And it still wouldn't matter if that inferior woman did work out and that ferior man didn't.

    If someone can bricklay, they can bricklay. If on average a woman is less likely, great. But the test to become a bricklayer shouldn't be "are you a man?", it should be "can you do this?". There's no point to making sure to treat people differently based on sex if there are more salient differences.

    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    This line stuck out to me. Seems like it should be the other way, practically speaking.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    This line stuck out to me. Seems like it should be the other way, practically speaking.
    He meant in a "would it be 'fair'?" type way, not a "could I take them?" type way.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    This line stuck out to me. Seems like it should be the other way, practically speaking.
    He meant in a "would it be 'fair'?" type way, not a "could I take them?" type way.

    Hahaha, yes.

    Though my father did always advise me to pick on the weak and infirm because "it's more fun to fight people if you know they can't fight back".

    My dad is awesome.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir, is there more to your statement than workouts? Trainers do take account of the fact you are a man/woman, but much more stock on individual testing, and how much you can or can't do. That matters a lot more than gender.

    I hope your point is built on more than "men are stronger, on average."

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Most men who aren't particularly strong COULD be if they put some effort in and worked out.

    Most women who are not strong do not have that option. They could get stronger, but if you took a man and woman of equal strength, and gave them the same strength training workout, the man would end up stronger at the end of it.

    And it still wouldn't matter if that inferior woman did work out and that ferior man didn't.

    If someone can bricklay, they can bricklay. If on average a woman is less likely, great. But the test to become a bricklayer shouldn't be "are you a man?", it should be "can you do this?". There's no point to making sure to treat people differently based on sex if there are more salient differences.

    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".
    "Yaaargh, my other employees are sexist"?

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    It's going to be hard to get people to accept the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons why there aren't many brickie women is that women don't enjoy assembling stuff as much as men do.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    It's going to be hard to get people to accept the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons why there aren't many brickie women is that women don't enjoy assembling stuff as much as men do.

    I smell herring. I wonder if it's red.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Why do you think you don't see many women bricklayers? There are some jobs women just can't do, or can't do as well as a man. Something like being an electrician, or a plumber, yes, a woman could do those, since they don't apppear to require much heavy lifting, or not as much as other jobs (I still have never seen a woman electrician or plumber), but jobs such as bricklayers are probably beyond the abilities of most women, if they want to get paid enough for doing a good job.

    You know why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

    EDIT: That last example about the bricklaying did come across as a little "women are inferior to men". That wasn't the intent, simply to state it to back up my point that women require different treatment to men, but thats no reason for them to not get equal treatment.

    Different on average. What does that really mean? A 120 pound man isn't going to be a better bricklayer than the Average Woman just because he's swinging pipe.

    There's a reason you never see a woman framing a house, and it's not because Women Aren't As Strong. It's for the same reason you never see a woman electrician.

    Most men who aren't particularly strong COULD be if they put some effort in and worked out.

    Most women who are not strong do not have that option. They could get stronger, but if you took a man and woman of equal strength, and gave them the same strength training workout, the man would end up stronger at the end of it.

    And it still wouldn't matter if that inferior woman did work out and that ferior man didn't.

    If someone can bricklay, they can bricklay. If on average a woman is less likely, great. But the test to become a bricklayer shouldn't be "are you a man?", it should be "can you do this?". There's no point to making sure to treat people differently based on sex if there are more salient differences.

    I am not going to avoid punching a girl if she's got 5 inches and 50 pounds on me. I'm not going to lay into some dude who is 100 pounds lighter than me.

    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    You're missing the point. If men are stronger on average, it will always be a male-dominated field.

    But that doesn't mean that you start saying "oh, then women should avoid trying", because a given woman when compared with a given population could still be the best choice. And since that process is all any position ever will be filled by, there's no particular reason to consider averages. They are non significant.

    It also doesn't mean that you can look at male dominated fields and decide that those talents must simply be inborn. Every field besides goddamn child-rearing was male dominated before a couple decades ago, and for all we know most of the differences used to explain why women aren't ever engineers could end up as hilariously easily corrected as the spatial reasoning gap (10 hours of Medal of Honor, total, testing 6 months later revealed no gap).

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    It's going to be hard to get people to accept the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons why there aren't many brickie women is that women don't enjoy assembling stuff as much as men do.
    I think the real problem is the obsessive amount of focus you're placing on these huge differences. Yeah, men and women are different in some ways, but that really doesn't justify the vast inequities that exist between them.

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Narom wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    It's going to be hard to get people to accept the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons why there aren't many brickie women is that women don't enjoy assembling stuff as much as men do.
    I think the real problem is the obsessive amount of focus placed on these all important differences. Yeah, men and women are different in some ways, but that really doesn't justify the vast inequities that exist between them.

    Oh, certainly not, and I repeatedly said as much.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I've seen a handful of studies done that show the cognitive differences in boys and girls can be blamed on math teachers with fair accuracy. More importantly, I've yet to see them debunked, whereas everything I've read that argues about sex-linked traits being innate is like Swiss cheese.

    It's fun to look at people with Klinefelter's and XYY when thinking about genetically determined cognitive and emotional traits. You start to notice that sex chromosomes make very little difference in those features.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I've seen a handful of studies done that show the cognitive differences in boys and girls can be blamed on math teachers with fair accuracy. More importantly, I've yet to see them debunked, whereas everything I've read that argues about sex-linked traits being innate is like Swiss cheese.

    It's fun to look at people with Klinefelter's and XYY when thinking about genetically determined cognitive and emotional traits. You start to notice that sex chromosomes make very little difference in those features.

    Or Androgen Insensitivity.

    There are plenty of ladies with XY chromosomes who do not seem to possess a deep instinctive constructive desire.

    Actually, they also have larger than average breasts, I believe.

    Genetics! Wacky.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Well, obviously, on a case by case basis, some women are goin to be better than some men.

    But if we're going to stick with specifically the bricklaying example, you do not see women bricklayers. I'm not a brickie, and I don't HIRE brickies, so I don't know the reason, but there must be one beyond just "yaaargh, im sexist".

    It'd be nice, yes, but unfortunately there really isn't. Understand it's not that the foreman or whoever is a prick who wouldn't hire a woman for the job. I mean, maybe he is, but that's not why. It's our entire sex-divided culture which is training girls basically from birth not to be bricklayers.

    I know it sounds silly, but that's pretty much how it works.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Just, like, an hour or ten of girls playing Medal of Honor closed the "spatial" reasoning and ability gap between girls and boys to inconsequential levels. The effect was such that even six months later, the girls retained almost all of their spatial reasoning.

    I used to think there really was a difference beyond physical. But more and more I'm thinking that men and women really just are the same, only developed physically different. We all start out as the same sex, for one.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Just, like, an hour or ten of girls playing Medal of Honor closed the "spatial" reasoning and ability gap between girls and boys to inconsequential levels. The effect was such that even six months later, the girls retained almost all of their spatial reasoning.

    I used to think there really was a difference beyond physical. But more and more I'm thinking that men and women really just are the same, only developed physically different. We all start out as the same sex, for one.

    Being physically different is enough to justify differing treatment in some regards.

    A few years back in West Aust, a woman was turned down for a job as a sheet-metal worker in favour of a man. She cried sexual discrimination. She never sued, but it was all over the news, and everyone loudly condemned the company.

    Everyone I talked to seemed to think she was justified in complaining. But, lookin at the man, he's a huge, probably at least 110kg (~245 pounds) muscle-bound guy, and it was a position to be a fucking sheet-metal worker! You weren't turned down because you're a woman! You were turned down because he is strong and you are not!

    That is what I mean by equal treatment, but not the same. If they were to be treated the same, she would get the job, probably suck at it because she'd have to keep wasting the other employee's time while they came to lift things for her (because whether you like it or not, she's not strong enough to lift stuff herself, sexism or not), and the company would be in trouble.

    instead, she should get a job that is not as manually intensive, but still the same pay. She's not being treated the same, but she is being treated equally.

    That is what I mean.

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh hey look at that example - it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender!

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh hey look at that example - it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender!

    There are not many women who could work as a sheet-metal worker.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say that no woman except a female body-builder would be capable of it

    Whereas most men would be able to, if not already be strong enough to do it, at least be able to get that strong if they really wanted to work as a sheet-metal worker.

    And its not so much the gender inequity, as it is that people seem to cry "GENDER DISCRIMINATION" when it was nothing of the sort.

    Thats more what I'm ranting about. The fact that quite often, gender does NOT have anything to do with a woman getting turned down for a position, yet they then get accused of discrimination.

    Dhalphir on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh hey look at that example - it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender!

    Hey, hey. Fuck you and your "semantics."

    Dick.

    Really though, that doesn't even sound like discrimination to me. The big guy got the job for being a big guy.

    Guys on average probably would get more physically laboring jobs. I think a better question is this. If the employer was told he could hire a man or woman for the job, without meeting either of them, would it be wrong for him to choose the man?

    I don't happen to think so, especially if we assume he had to choose. If he could opt out, though, why would he? To avoid being called sexist? Would it just be natural to assume the guy would be stronger?

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    There's a rather large number of men who can't build muscle for shit.

    There's just fewer men who are culturaly-trained to starve themselves and stick to low-impact activity while their bodies are developing to ensure they can't build muscle for shit.

    Yes, it is stupid as hell when some groups, attempting to be Politically Correct rather than Ethically Correct change the RULES to meet a gender quota. Guess what, that's sexism too.

    Thing is, if your "female body builder" wanted to be a sheet metal worker, and was more qualified for the position, she'd damned well better be allowed to get it just as readily as an equal man.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yes, pragmatically, on a case by case basis, no one would disagree that the stronger person, male or female, should get the job.

    But much of philosophy, so I've observed, isn't about practical, specific axioms. It's about dealing with hypotheticals, thought experiments and extremes. So, I figured... eh, nevermind.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    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.

    No. If anything, the advent of agriculture largely eliminated the advantage that men genetically had over women in hunting in terms of strength (ability to throw heavy stuff such as rocks and spears at moving objects) and spatial reasoning (ability to find their way home after long hunting treks). With agriculture you no longer needed these.
    Except humans weren't "hunters", they were "hunter gatherers". And just as it is now meat is pretty hard to get(hunted meat), so most of the actual food would come from the gathering, which the females were more prone to do. With agriculture men did almost all of it, etc. This is the as far as I have heard widely accepted theory and the theory which you have not responded to.

    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
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    For example, there's pretty solid evidence that men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women and women are more aroused by aural stimuli than men.

    And here's an example. Those studies were largely based on showing women male-oriented mainstream porn,

    Your point being?
    Did I say that the differences in arousal had anything to do with evolutionary factors?
    Did I say that they were genetic or chromosomal in origin?

    I think you missed my point by a mile. I was trying to put the kibosh on the notion that opposing evo-psych necessarily means you believe that there are no neurological differences between the sexes. What it means is recognizing that (a) the differences are generally subtle, (b) they need not be genetic or evolutionary in origin, (c) they say absolutely nothing about some imaginary narrative of the lifestyle of paleolithic humans and (d) they ultimately have very little bearing on any political or social agenda.

    You seem to be arguing not that the differences were not detected, but that differences when detected are significantly affected (or possibly even caused by) cultural conditioning... which is, y'know, pretty much my point.
    The Cat wrote: »
    or asking questions that when honestly answered by a female buying in to mainstream gender ideals contribute to a self-image of one as a 'bad person'. It is bullshit research that flies in the face of reams of other information - why is women-made porn so popular? Why do teenage girls commonly paper their bedroom walls with male pinups? Why are women commonly expected to be the ones obsessed with looks, fashion, interior design, 'pretty' things? That research supports a purely fictional view of women that constructs them as passive objects and creatures of feeling rather than solid, 'seen' things. Even more telling, that narrative flies in the face of the old stories about women, that they were insatiable creatures easily distracted by the visual. Fail.

    Something tells me you're arguing against a Displacer Point that's slightly blurry and three feet to the right against my actual point. But go ahead and fight your windmill, I just hope that once you're done you realize that we're basically on the same side.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.