Girls and Guys (and any others also) Has real feminism died?

Original post by missygeorgia

...

Arguing that Men and Females are mentally identical to one another is a matter of SCIENCE.

Reply 82

Original post by midpikyrozziy

As I've said before, I'm no expert on biology, but that's not where the physical differences end. The sexual organs aren't just different aesthetically, they serve different purposes. The male testes and female ovaries produce different hormones that alter our characteristics, and as we have no real control over this hormone release, this is an innate process. As such, that is not where the innate characteristics end at all. This is coming from a basic grasp of GCSE Biology, I'm sure a biologist or a neuroscientist could explain in much greater detail these differences (see the link that was posted a few posts ago).

You need to re-read my old posts - I have never said that gender roles are not constructed. Seeing as gender is a construct, the roles that accompany it clearly are. But what I am saying is that these constructs are far from negative, and occur naturally as a result of the biological differences between men and women.

Ok, well I think gender is COMPLETELY constructed, whereas you seem to see it as only partially constructed..? right?

And yes, there are hormonal differences between people with penises and people without penises. But I'm inclined to see these as having little to no bearing on gender.

Reply 83

Ellim

11

Original post by Ocassus

Case in point, you can't articulate against my points and thereby resort to childish quotations and ignorance. Well done, you are just perpetuating the argument against you. :clap:

I don't really need to articulate against your point. I'm not arguing with you - I'm telling you that I believe that you're wrong but if you can show me some credible proof then I'm more than happy to admit my mistake.

And no, your own explination is not credible proof unless you've had it published ina peer-review journal.

The onus is pretty much always on the person who presents their argument to prove that it is true. In this case, that person is you. And, thus far, I'm not convinced.

Reply 84

Original post by Ocassus

Arguing that Men and Females are mentally identical to one another is a matter of SCIENCE.

Why?

Because like Krov has said, it is a genetic fact that different configurations are hardwired into males and females. Females are more responsive to emotion, have more rapid hormonal responses, more mature hormonal development and the two sides of the brain communicate much better with each other in a female.

In a male the Cerebrum and certain parts of the neocortex are more developed and hormonal responses when triggered are far more powerful, whether they be detrimental to the individual or not.

These are FACTS. Not disputable.

Then how do you account for the huge amount of men and women who don't fit these scientific facts?

Reply 85

Krov

10

The glaring contradiction that innervates everyone of your posts Missygeorgia threatens to make my brain explode.
You post-materialistic insane feminist woman, you can't be a feminist and simultaneously dismiss science

BECAUSE FEMINISM IS BUILT ON THE BELIEF IN PROGRESS WHICH DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS. BELIEVING THAT GENDER DOES NOT DEPEND ON NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS GOES AGAINST MATERIALISM WHICH IS WHAT FEMINISM IS MADE OF.

Reply 86

JGR

9

Original post by missygeorgia

Er, the school of humanities? Reason, critical theory? Feminism has very little to do with science.

Why would I become a mouthpiece for pseudo science? My argument has nothing to do with science.

We are not discussing hypothetical ideal societies and beings.

In order to argue about real people, you need to understand the nature of real people. Grossly crude approximations as you are implicitly making, by their nature invalidate your argument as based on flawed data and assumptions.

The school of humanities, reason and critical thinking are not devolved from science.

Reply 87

Original post by Ellim

I don't really need to articulate against your point. I'm not arguing with you - I'm telling you that I believe that you're wrong but if you can show me some credible proof then I'm more than happy to admit my mistake.

And no, your own explination is not credible proof unless you've had it published ina peer-review journal.

The onus is pretty much always on the person who presents their argument to prove that it is true. In this case, that person is you. And, thus far, I'm not convinced.

I gave you practical examples of why this is the case. Unless you can come up with a decent rebuttal for those practical facts then your argument DOES fall flat on its face.

Yes, you are arguing. Arguing is communicating and exchanging opinions and facts with somebody with intent to establish a proposition. Hence it is arguing, although at the moment it is rather one sided in my favor.

Are you really disputing men are on average more productive than women in lets say, manual labour?

Reply 88

Original post by JGR

Don't be pedantic.
You've completely ignored the point of his (and various other) posts, in that you yourself stated that your argument is not based on science.
As far as I'm concerned, that just suggests that you're making it up as you go along.

It's not pedantry. 'Sex' has something do with science- 'gender' has very little to do with science. 'Sex' is to do with biology, 'gender' has to do with all the social associations we have with the ideas of male and female. It's an important distinction.

Reply 89

BorisMalden

10

Original post by missygeorgia

Ok, well I think gender is COMPLETELY constructed, whereas you seem to see it as only partially constructed..? right?

And yes, there are hormonal differences between people with penises and people without penises. But I'm inclined to see these as having little to no bearing on gender.

This is going to be my last post for tonight, because I feel like we're going round in circles.

I see gender as completely constructed, but as a result of the sexual differences. That is, the fact that men are naturally more aggressive and competitive sees them assuming the dominant role in society, and the fact that women are naturally more emotionally inclined sees them assume the (equally important) caregiving role. The genders are constructed as a result of the hormonal differences, and this is a natural process, and not as some feminists might think 'a society that only caters to the needs of men and aims to keep women subservient'.

Hope that clears it up.

Reply 90

Original post by missygeorgia

,,,

Because structurally the makeup of their brains is different. No female brain looks like a male brain and vice versa on the planet. Because they have two different templates.

They are naturally balanced towards those things, obviously individuality comes into play here. However if two people with equal intelligence were to engage in a situation where all other variable were equal. IN subjects like Science the male would triumph, and vice versa in subjects like English. Comprendeh?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 91

Krov

10

Original post by Ellim

I don't really need to articulate against your point. I'm not arguing with you - I'm telling you that I believe that you're wrong but if you can show me some credible proof then I'm more than happy to admit my mistake.

And no, your own explination is not credible proof unless you've had it published ina peer-review journal.

The onus is pretty much always on the person who presents their argument to prove that it is true. In this case, that person is you. And, thus far, I'm not convinced.

Peer reviewed journal ?

Blum, D. - "Sex on the Brain: The Biological Differences Between Men and Women". Penguin, 1998
Bishop K.M. and Wahlsten, D. Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: myth or reality? Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews vol 21 (5) 581 - 601, 1997.

Is it academically hardcore enough for you ? You probably won't even understand the first three words in any of these books...

Reply 92

LemonKitty

8

Original post by missygeorgia

Yes, that's a totally valid distinction, if you read the Daily fricking Mail.

Otherwise, that's a complete misrepresentation of feminism, on both accounts. Facepalm.

Believe me I have met my fair share and they have all given me this impression. From our uni Women's Representative and the events she publicises to my old English teacher and the feminist books she made us read.

Obviously I believe in equality but I think these days that's just a given, so feminists now have to take it one step further.

Reply 93

Original post by JGR

In order to argue about real people, you need to understand the nature of real people.

Yeahhh... and..?

Original post by JGR

The school of humanities, reason and critical thinking are not devolved from science.

I know, it's great.

Reply 94

Jimbo1234

20

Original post by SoulfulBoy

The last century was greatly important regarding women rights and the idea of what feminism was could be clearly seen. What is feminism doing today? Don't misinterpret me, I know there are still few groups fighting for that, but I cannot see the same spirit of the last century. Feminism as a whole has been reduced to attend some irrelevant meetings with no real future or participating in the Day of Women (it means that we reckognize women fully for a day and then we forget about it). Where is the feminism today? Has the X Factor,soap-operas kind of television programmes, female magazines and another **** destroyed it? Let's start a hot debate :smile:

Just women realising what they actually want.
They fight for the right to have elections, then less then half actually vote. Also, feminism has been ingrained into our society that it is more of an underlying theme rather then a new, radical movement.

Reply 95

Original post by missygeorgia

Yeahhh... and..?

I know, it's great.

Case in ****ing frigging point.

Reply 96

Original post by midpikyrozziy

This is going to be my last post for tonight, because I feel like we're going round in circles.

I see gender as completely constructed, but as a result of the sexual differences. That is, the fact that men are naturally more aggressive and competitive sees them assuming the dominant role in society, and the fact that women are naturally more emotionally inclined sees them assume the (equally important) caregiving role. The genders are constructed as a result of the hormonal differences, and this is a natural process, and not as some feminists might think 'a society that only caters to the needs of men and aims to keep women subservient'.

Hope that clears it up.

But saying gender is a construct means that there isn't any biological basis for it. If you think that women are 'naturally' more caring and emotional, then the female gender role of being caring and emotional surely isn't a 'role' or a 'construct' at all, it's just natural.

I get your position, but I don't think you can argue both at the same time- I don't think you can say 'gender roles are fabricated but they're also natural'.

Reply 97

Advanced Subsidiary