Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    As you please, lets take the innate behaviour of hunting prey as our example to keep things basic (since algebra didn't exist during our evolutionary process and therefore we have to implement the skills we developed at this time to solve more recent tasks and problems).

    Would you agree that it requires a less emotional mind set? You wouldn't survive very long as a vegetarian put it that way. Being squimish about killing and feeling sympathy for other life leads to vegetarianism right? Vegetarianism being a practice that has a vastly greater number of females following than males. Societal pressures didn't tell women that they should never eat meat did they?
    So that's as clear as mud in that, you've put several different flimsy excuses of examples up but, I'll respond to all of the mud.

    A) Females do hunt and fish. So it's not based on sex.

    B) I'm a male vegan.

    C) I'm a lot more emotional than my female partner. Or more, I show emotion a lot more easily. There's no way to measure who feels emotions stronger.

    D) Women are often told to be slimmer, they have many many more eating disorders. In the past if there was meat, it would generally be given to the males, so females might eat less meat if there was less to go around compared to their male counter parts. Meat is something that's been seen as masculine for a long time. But masculinity being the "better" gender in the eyes of society, it's a lot more acceptable for a female to do "male things" than for a male to do "female things".
    "Male/female things" refers to gendered behaviour in case that was unclear.

    Please could you provide a better example as the ones provided in the post I've quoted are wholly inadequate.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Think she might have blocked me, mind editing your post to include mine as I think you'll agree with it?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...2#post42075662
    No need. She is most definitely trolling. Thanks for the rep though, I've returned the favour.

    Troll post:

    (Original post by Bellissima)
    yes i'm sorry but if women were running this **** then we'd already be living in a flying city on the other side of the universe 1000 years in the future. i think we just have more brain cells dedicated to intelligent thinking.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    well everyone was thinking it.
    No, no they're not. The people that say the entirety of one gender is more intelligent than the other are nothing more than sexist, and I imagine the vast majority of feminists would find a comment like that simply embarrassing that people genuinely hold views like that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    And yet still the buggers don't actually apply for courses in STEM subjects, and then they complain there is a pay gap. I mean, the education system is biased in favour of women, there are no barriers to entry to these subjects for women in the first place, in fact, positive discrimination like this abounds in every high-earning field from science to finance. Whatever job they're in, they then get legal protection so that they can still have a high salary even though they take time off to raise the kids; men don't get that. Women retire earlier and die later. What more can we do, for Christ's sake? There comes a time when women have to stop accepting free hand-ups and step up to the plate.

    And heaven forbid that the same unfair privileges be extended to men in shortage fields, heaven forbid even further that we actually select candidates based on merit!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Think she might have blocked me, mind editing your post to include mine as I think you'll agree with it?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...2#post42075662
    why would i have blocked you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    You could be right in that in a totally equal world having a grant that doesn't include men might not be OK, but this world is by no means equal!

    For centuries, women have been excluded from science, and this grant is one persons attempt to help remedy that. These women-only grants are needed, not only for equality, but for the future of science! We NEED women to be scientists to contribute to the discoveries to tackle the massive problems we face, and these grants are a way of pulling down the remnants of the old male-dominance that used to plague science.

    Dont get me wrong - I totally understand your irritation at being excluded from such a good grant just because of your gender. Hopefully, in the future, gender based grants wont be needed...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ry#Middle_Ages

    You were saying?

    Also we do not 'NEED' women to be scientists, what we need are the finest minds in science and those minds which have the capacity to be so to be scientists, irrespective of whether they are male or female.

    Additionally, 'These women-only grants are needed, not only for equality' I think you will find is rather paradoxical and oxymoron-esque.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    If the whole population was as incompetent as you to extrapolate data and information from other sources and then to apply them to our own species and endeavours then we'd get absolutely nowhere.

    Would you compare contrast between two completely different spieces that are not human, such as looking at the hunting and stalking skills of each, understanding that they both exploit their environment for camouflage and what has driving them to develop such similar behaviour? If so, then why can't you do the same thing between humans and other species, maybe even very closely related species such as chimpanzees and bonobo apes?
    Your logic is wrong on such a fundamental level I'm having difficulty thinking how to respond to this. Let me put it this way. Two species are observed to exhibit similar behaviours in camouflaging themselves. Then what? What's the point you are trying to make from this, apart from, these two animals camouflage themselves similarly. What does this imply apart from itself?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    I really dont care what gender you are, neither have i accused you of being sexist.
    When did I say you'd accused me of being sexist? I said you straw manned me, those things are completely separate :rolleyes: .

    Your whole approach is that it's men's duty to fight for equality for men and women's to fight for equality of women.
    I don't think the feminist movement would have achieved things as quickly if it weren't for people like Bentham and Mill for example.

    It's societies job.

    And reducing down people saying that they disagree with something and why to "*****ing" about it just comes off ass you being a ****. You don't know what any of those people do or don't do. Whether they have the power to make sure they're heard or not.

    Finally you're victim blaming as well. Which pisses me off a great deal. Your posts lack an ability to actually comprehend what I'm saying, and that's leading you to say things like, I accused you of calling me a sexist :rolleyes: .
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan.G)
    No, no they're not. The people that say the entirety of one gender is more intelligent than the other are nothing more than sexist, and I imagine the vast majority of feminists would find a comment like that simply embarrassing that people genuinely hold views like that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Completely agree (would rep but have run out today)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymouspie227)
    I think it's nice. I think the idea of encouraging people from under-represented groups in a particular field, to study in that area, via scholarships are good. Individuals may not choose to study had it not been for those possible awards...

    Edit: Also, if we lived in world where there was no negative discrimination, and people weren't therefore disadvantaged for, whatever reason, and real equality existed universally, then I'd disagree with such schemes.
    I disagree. It is not the place of a public institution to offer free hand-outs to people they think of as "victim cases". It is their impetus to treat everyone equally regardless of race/gender/religion. This does not mean trying to balance out perceived unfair gender ratio with equally unfair handouts to people of a certain persuasion. A much more effective way of decreasing discrimination is (and I'm not sure if they do this already or not) making applications anonymous. Make it so that they don't know your age/name/location/income.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So that's as clear as mud in that, you've put several different flimsy excuses of examples up but, I'll respond to all of the mud.

    A) Females do hunt and fish. So it's not based on sex.

    B) I'm a male vegan.

    C) I'm a lot more emotional than my female partner. Or more, I show emotion a lot more easily. There's no way to measure who feels emotions stronger.

    D) Women are often told to be slimmer, they have many many more eating disorders. In the past if there was meat, it would generally be given to the males, so females might eat less meat if there was less to go around compared to their male counter parts. Meat is something that's been seen as masculine for a long time. But masculinity being the "better" gender in the eyes of society, it's a lot more acceptable for a female to do "male things" than for a male to do "female things".
    "Male/female things" refers to gendered behaviour in case that was unclear.

    Please could you provide a better example as the ones provided in the post I've quoted are wholly inadequate.
    Finding one or two exceptions to a rule do not disprove it, yet I feel that is what you are basing your opinions on, and leads to you describing any example imaginably possible as being flimsy..

    - There are vast amounts of females compared to males in care-giving roles because to do that you need to be more emotionally empathetic and patient.

    - There are greater numbers of males in the emergancy services and armed forces (only taking into consideration those open equally to both genders).

    Everything I put forward you will described as being due to societal pressure, yet you completely ignore the fact that societal pressures are based on opinions, opinions than stems from our different 'skill sets' in the first place. The pressure is there to get the majority of individuals into the place where they best fit, it is not all driven by sexism and gender superiority.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Positive discrimination isn't good. It just perpetuates the myth that men and women are necessarily different.
    disagree. If used on a temporary basis to balance one sided statistics then it is a good thing. The will improve female numbers in STEM subjects and help overwrite the widespread belief that STEM subjects are male dominated for whatever reason and women are better suited to subjects such as health and humanities. Positive discrimination used in the correct places doesn't say that there is a difference. It says that once there was believed to be a difference and as a result an imbalance has occurred.

    Another example:
    Without positive discrimination in the PSNI there PSNI would be a protestant dominated force and still viewed in the same light as the RUC.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    why would i have blocked you?
    Must be thinking of someone else then. When I had membership I noticed someone blocked me, I managed to ask them why once and they said they thought my posts were stupid and that I didn't understand feminism etc. and so blocked me. I thought that was you :confused: . But I mix a lot of TSR users up so given your response to me and the nature of your response to me, I'm 99% I've muddled you up :rolleyes:. Don't be surprised if I manage to do it again in the future (my memory isn't what most people would call...beyond that of a gold fish) .

    Sorry for this and any future mix ups .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    The asumption i made that men couldnt be bothered to speak out comes from seeing a lot of guys on TSR and other forums, simply moaning but doing nothing.Yes there are a few women, but a greater number of men seem to speak so harshly about feminsists simply for being motivated when they themselves cba to do anything other than sit on a forum and whine about it.

    And why should they not be heard? If feminists can make themselves heard so can anyone else, just try hard enough. Nothing stopping women and anyone who calls themself a feminist joining in if they support them either.

    I didnt say in my post that only women were feminists either before i get accused of that :rolleyes:
    In fact I have heard it argued that the reason men do not band together in solidarity and lead an emancipation movement is because women are naturally more gregarious and sisterhood-y. Us lot are too concerned with competing against one another.

    You could say this is a vicious circle, that the very masculine traits we need to emancipate ourselves from are what stop us from doing that. Or you could say that as women gain more power, feminise society and begin to denigrate ultra-masculine types it will be more acceptable for men to share our feelings with other men. It remains to be seen, however I think lately we are seeing the beginnings of a movement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Must be thinking of someone else then. When I had membership I noticed someone blocked me, I managed to ask them why once and they said they thought my posts were stupid and that I didn't understand feminism etc. and so blocked me. I thought that was you :confused: . But I mix a lot of TSR users up so given your response to me and the nature of your response to me, I'm 99% I've muddled you up :rolleyes:. Don't be surprised if I manage to do it again in the future (my memory isn't what most people would call...beyond that of a gold fish) .

    Sorry for this and any future mix ups .
    i can assure you it wasn't me, but it's ok don't worry!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly the best way to beat sexism is to be sexist...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    1)Finding one or two exceptions to a rule do not disprove it, yet I feel that is what you are basing your opinions on, and leads to you describing any example imaginably possible as being flimsy..

    2)- There are vast amounts of females compared to males in care-giving roles because to do that you need to be more emotionally empathetic and patient.

    3)- There are greater numbers of males in the emergancy services and armed forces (only taking into consideration those open equally to both genders).

    4)Everything I put forward you will described as being due to societal pressure, yet you completely ignore the fact that societal pressures are based on opinions, opinions than stems from our different 'skill sets' in the first place. The pressure is there to get the majority of individuals into the place where they best fit, it is not all driven by sexism and gender superiority.

    :facepalm2: .

    I don't understand how you don't actually understand.


    1) You can't claim that something is sex based. Then ignore examples where it doesn't work. It means that it is not sex based. Literally. If you say women can't do X, they're just not capable of it and a woman does X, then it is not women that can't do X but some women. And some women can do X. Therefore the claim women cannot do X is fundamentally wrong.

    2) So because there are more women than men in the care giving roles that means that it must be based in the sexes, and we'll ignore men in the care giving role, they don't count. Great logic. Can't wait to be a male primary school teacher that doesn't count :rolleyes: .

    3) So there are females too?
    Wait, **** it, lets forget them.

    4) "opinions than stems from our different 'skill sets' in the first place."

    Do you actually understand what "opinion" means?

    "The pressure is there to get the majority of individuals into the place where they best fit, it is not all driven by sexism and gender superiority."

    You mean, as an example:

    So women should stay at home and men should go to work you mean? As an example?
    Because women are better suited to being at home? And any woman that doesn't conform can get the **** back in the kitchen.

    Great logic.

    You're either troll or a sexist idiot who can't actually understand how logic works.
    I'm fed up with you and disappointed in the lack of intelligence shown in any of your posts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Your logic is wrong on such a fundamental level I'm having difficulty thinking how to respond to this. Let me put it this way. Two species are observed to exhibit similar behaviours in camouflaging themselves. Then what? What's the point you are trying to make from this, apart from, these two animals camouflage themselves similarly. What does this imply apart from itself?
    You're having difficulting in understanding because it is clearly going over your head, and therefore my logic is skew?

    What does it imply? That life finds similar ways to lead to the same outcome, despite millions of years of evolutionary divergence (which is what I can only assume you mean by 'different'). Life also finds similar ways to use the different genders effectively and as a team to solve the same problems, leading to similar behaviours.

    It's really that simple, if your next response is one showing a clear lack of understanding this fact then I suggest you spare your breath. If you are simply going to say "humans are on a different level in all aspects too all other life" then likewise, spare your breath.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Finding one or two exceptions to a rule do not disprove it, yet I feel that is what you are basing your opinions on, and leads to you describing any example imaginably possible as being flimsy..

    - There are vast amounts of females compared to males in care-giving roles because to do that you need to be more emotionally empathetic and patient.

    - There are greater numbers of males in the emergancy services and armed forces (only taking into consideration those open equally to both genders).

    Everything I put forward you will described as being due to societal pressure, yet you completely ignore the fact that societal pressures are based on opinions, opinions than stems from our different 'skill sets' in the first place. The pressure is there to get the majority of individuals into the place where they best fit, it is not all driven by sexism and gender superiority.
    So, you're saying because care-givers need to be more 'emotionally empathetic and patient' and 'there are vast amounts of females compared to males in care-giving roles' it therefore follows that women are generally more empathetic and patient? Or because women are on average more empathetic and patient it therefore follows that there should be a "vast amount of females compared to males" regardless of how miniscule that difference in empathy is?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    disagree. If used on a temporary basis to balance one sided statistics then it is a good thing. The will improve female numbers in STEM subjects and help overwrite the widespread belief that STEM subjects are male dominated for whatever reason and women are better suited to subjects such as health and humanities. Positive discrimination used in the correct places doesn't say that there is a difference. It says that once there was believed to be a difference and as a result an imbalance has occurred.

    Another example:
    Without positive discrimination in the PSNI there PSNI would be a protestant dominated force and still viewed in the same light as the RUC.
    Can you expand the acronyms please?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.