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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's only sexism if men are at fault.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    I believe what you say is probably very true. Although if men feel more able to show emotion and share their feelings i think thats a very good thing
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Can you expand the acronyms please?
    Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Offline

    17
    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...
    Actually, if you're trying to prove a rule to be true then an exception does disprove it. That's how the scientific method works. You need to change your rule. If there are ANY exceptions at all then you can only say most, and not all.
    If you're trying to say a certain skill (hunting) is only possessed by men and one female can do it then you're wrong. You could say that hunting is done predominantly by men (which doesn't justify any discrimination, that woman might be a better hunter than all of the men even though she is a very small minority), but not entirely.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    :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.
    :lol:

    I'm ignoring examples where it doesn't work? I'm almost certainly not, I'm just not assuming that a few exceptions to the rule lead to that rule being complete tosh. You're trying to find definites in behaviour and life and for that I'd suggest that the accolade for 'lack of intelligence' more fittingly warrents a place alongside your posts.

    And claims of sexism? The smell of your argument running thin is apparent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was a case in America I think it was about 4 or 5 years ago where a white guy was rejected from a masters program. He then reapplied with the same qualifications but said he was a black female. Obviously at the interview they were shocked to see a white male and when he took it to court he won because he said he deeply believed inside he is female and deeply believes he feels black. I think they probably have tied up the loop holes to allow that now. But totally agree its unfair that you cant apply because you are male :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppet Science)
    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.
    Fair point with the link, but I would argue that the list of male scientists before the 21st century would be considerably longer

    I agree that what science needs is the finest minds possible, irrespective of gender. However, we need to ensure that these minds are available, and inclined to enter science. We NEED women to be scientists, as half of the intelligence of the human race is held by women. Hence, if women do not enter science just as frequently as men do, then we are squandering a set of brilliant minds. Sadly, whilst female scientists did exist before the 21st century, they were far less frequent than male scientists; this wasted generations of potentially brilliant scientists.

    That is what these grants are about; knocking down the old traditions of male dominance, to stop us throwing away brilliant minds in the future. Hence, whilst these grants are fundamentally a bit unfair, they are needed - at least for now. Hopefully the time will come when they are not!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You're a male which means you're expendable. Your genders builds and protects society. And when the going gets tough you must fend for yourself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Ah but I'd say that those are a different scenario, very similar to the teaching one I put forward.

    Children generally don't know the sex of a scientist. In fact often we'll see initials and a last name. And as far as I can tell there's no stigma with being a scientist, lawyer, accountant etc. and being female. Where as one would be perpetuated because that's a front line service.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    :lol:

    I'm ignoring examples where it doesn't work? I'm almost certainly not, I'm just not assuming that a few exceptions to the rule lead to that rule being complete tosh. You're trying to find definites in behaviour and life and for that I'd suggest that the accolade for 'lack of intelligence' more fittingly warrents a place alongside your posts.

    And claims of sexism? The smell of your argument running thin is apparent.
    You are ignoring examples where it doesn't work. You call them exceptions, then ignore them.
    A new rule needs to be put in place because those rules don't work, otherwise they wouldn't have exceptions, unless you can show why the exceptions don't meet the rule. But you haven't, and I heavily suspect you don't.

    You still haven't given a decent example. But I won't wait up specifically for it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Actually, if you're trying to prove a rule to be true then an exception does disprove it. That's how the scientific method works. You need to change your rule. If there are ANY exceptions at all then you can only say most, and not all.
    If you're trying to say a certain skill (hunting) is only possessed by men and one female can do it then you're wrong. You could say that hunting is done predominantly by men (which doesn't justify any discrimination, that woman might be a better hunter than all of the men even though she is a very small minority), but not entirely.
    That's what I'm trying to do :lol:

    A rule in nature is something that fits the most possible examples, there will always be exceptions. I would have thought that in relation to this discussion that not using definites was the logical stance to take. Take the mean and SD over the presence of outliers..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    maybe you should check your privilege OP :lol:

    seriously though, I saw this at kcl a while ago, is it just them or are other unis also running this scholarship
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You are ignoring examples where it doesn't work. You call them exceptions, then ignore them.
    A new rule needs to be put in place because those rules don't work, otherwise they wouldn't have exceptions, unless you can show why the exceptions don't meet the rule. But you haven't, and I heavily suspect you don't.

    You still haven't given a decent example. But I won't wait up specifically for it.
    Then I will explain it as such: It is evolutionarily advantageous to have individuals who don't fit the mould and therefore have variance and diversity in any role. The fact of the matter remains however, the majority will fit into their respective gender behavioural traits.

    These exceptions do not disprove the rule, they merely give rise to a new unrelated rule.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    You're having difficulting in understanding because it is clearly going over your head, and therefore my logic is skew?
    If that was my reason for saying your logic is wrong, then I would indeed be incorrect, but alas . . .
    (Original post by Mockery)
    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.
    Yes! So we can say that species which find themselves in similar situations have adapted to those situations in similar ways, because the statistical nature of those mutations means that they will on average find the path of least resistance to a solution. However, this is only a way of describing the AVERAGE situation. Say I now take an isolated species from the sample that I calculated the average of, facing the same problem, but I DO NOT YET KNOW how it has solved that problem. It does not follow from the fact that the average response was X that this isolated species will therefore use the response X.
    (Original post by Mockery)
    It's really that simple, if your next response is one showing a clear lack to understand 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.
    If my next response does not imply either of these things then why would my next response exist at all?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    because those subjects are lacking in the female department.


    we get free entry to clubs too
    all. my. rage
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Then I will explain it as such: It is evolutionarily advantageous to have individuals who don't fit the mould and therefore have variance and diversity in any role. The fact of the matter remains however, the majority will fit into their respective gender behavioural traits.

    These exceptions do not disprove the rule, they merely give rise to a new unrelated rule.
    Dear God you're almost there. ALMOST.

    That would actually mean you're saying that some women would fit into rule X and some women would have a different rule, rule Y.

    Therefore it's not based on sex, it's based on the individual woman.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    That's what I'm trying to do :lol:

    A rule in nature is something that fits the most possible examples, there will always be exceptions. I would have thought that in relation to this discussion that not using definites was the logical stance to take. Take the mean and SD over the presence of outliers..
    When you refer to things being dependent on sex, the assumption is that you are using 'definites'. If you said related to sex, you'd have been fine.
    Apart from 'having a penis/vagina' and 'releasing sperm/eggs' etc. nothing is dependent on sex, although a bunch of things can be related.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Then I will explain it as such: It is evolutionarily advantageous to have individuals who don't fit the mould and therefore have variance and diversity in any role. The fact of the matter remains however, the majority will fit into their respective gender behavioural traits.

    These exceptions do not disprove the rule, they merely give rise to a new unrelated rule.
    What it essentially boils down to is this:
    -Yes, men and women may well be born with different inherent inclinations on average.
    -No, we cannot use animals of different species as a model for the behaviour of the larger and more complex human brain, and in any case I struggle to think of a species which evolved under similar circumstances to ours (the development of tools to combat the environment as opposed to hard skin/poison etc. etc.)
    -You cannot look at a dominant pattern of gender occupancy in human society and say that this must be a natural inclination because humanity represents a large sample. There are incredible homogenising factors in human society such as dictatorships, law, and tradition that make it impossible to look at any given pattern and call it natural without first subtracting all of the artificial factors.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Dear God you're almost there. ALMOST.

    That would actually mean you're saying that some women would fit into rule X and some women would have a different rule, rule Y.

    Therefore it's not based on sex, it's based on the individual woman.
    I'll have to stand fast I'm affraid.

    Your argument up to now: There is no such thing as gender roles and it is completely up to the individual.

    My argument up to now: There certainly are traits relating to gender and therefore roles in which males and females fit in more comfortably.

    There are individuals who may show more characteristics that you'd expect with the opposite gender which you percieve as proving your argument. I have suggested that these anomolies are advantageous in bringing diversity to any role or bringing one set of qualities to the other, but the base line seperation between the genders exists.

    What you have failed to do is explain to me the reason for there being apparent patterns between genders and the roles they take up. You have said that it is purely due to societal pressures yet you ignored my explanation as to why societal pressures come about and you disregarded it and myself as purely sexist.

    Your argument has been abysmal and you have been stringently closed minded, ordering me to come up with examples that fit your criteria, criteria that is impossible to meet and that have absolutely to logic nor reasoning behind them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    When you refer to things being dependent on sex, the assumption is that you are using 'definites'. If you said related to sex, you'd have been fine.
    Apart from 'having a penis/vagina' and 'releasing sperm/eggs' etc. nothing is dependent on sex, although a bunch of things can be related.
    Ok attack my use of terminology however my adversary is claiming that it is not related to sex at all and that is what I'm arguing against.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.