Girls and Guys (and any others also) Has real feminism died?
Scroll to see replies
I would rather say that gender inequality exists, and that goes both ways. Same with racism etc.
Original post by midpikyrozziy
I see gender as completely constructed...
... 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.
I see gender as completely constructed...
... 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.
Those are two quite different views - that gender is both socially constructed AND biologically determined?
Original post by midpikyrozziy
Hope that clears it up.
Afraid its not as simple as that
Original post by Eclectic Styles
Hot.
Dude, go fap or something. All your posts in this thread have basically been typed equivilents of thrusting.
Original post by missygeorgia
Dude, go fap or something. All your posts in this thread have basically been typed equivilents of thrusting.
Bitch, please.
When you wanna talk "equality", come ready with a paddle and some whipped cream. It should help us get to the "centre" of things...
(You know I'm taking the piss, but the offer about the paddle and cream still stands...
)Original post by Ocassus
Because absolutely nothing you say is based on RATIONALIZED EVIDENCE.
Lets have a look at some 'rationalized evidence'
Original post by Ocassus
And similar studies have shown women specialize in general better with subjects like English better than Mathematics
Some interesting reading to reverse your views on math performance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182655.htm
The peer reviewed journal is linked to at the bottom of the page, as are multiple studies that have been released more recently denying biologically-rooted cognitive differences between the sexes.
You say these issues are to be measured by science, yet you appear to demonstrate negligible scientific rigor. Nevertheless, the brand of biological determinism you evidently subscribe to has been out-moded for quite some time, now.
Why, if gender-related differences are given naturally, should they be so emphatically marked in every culture? Upon looking at the way gender relations are connected with certain roles and functions within societies, a hugely varied image of operational gender relations emerges, disputing the claim of universal trends in the perception of sex differences.
Original post by Ellim
I don't think that is true at all. I think part of the problem of the public perception of 'failing feminism' is that feminist movements have become misaligned though academic differences. Now a standard response to someone telling me they are a 'feminist' is 'what kind?'
Plus, I personally think that a few branches of feminism have 'ruined' the public image of the overall cause. Originally feminists were fighting for equality - as the majority of feminist movements are today. Some, however, have take it too far and it seems to have swung into misandry.
Plus, I personally think that a few branches of feminism have 'ruined' the public image of the overall cause. Originally feminists were fighting for equality - as the majority of feminist movements are today. Some, however, have take it too far and it seems to have swung into misandry.
^^^^^This.
A small minority of feminists have decided that equality is not what they want and have waged war on men in general thus alienating a significant portion fo their suppport.
I agree women were treated appalingly for far too long, however treating men like that does not equate to equality, it becomes revenge. The vast majority of feminists (ie those who want equality between the sexes of which I consider my self to be one) don't want to see years of bigotry returned. What we want is for equal opportunities for both sexes.
Original post by Krov
Yes, and WHY don't women want to be engineers? Why aren't they motivated and ambitious in the same way as men? In what way has society let them know that as women, less is expected of them, they shouldn't be as ambitious, and that they're supposed to work in certain jobs? It's obviously not innate, is it?
A: Because they aren't men. Why can't a goldfish fly like an eagle ? In what way has the fish society let them know that they shouldn't be able to fly, and they're supposed to live in the ocean. It's obviously ? not innate, is it?
So yes, it is innate.
A: Because they aren't men. Why can't a goldfish fly like an eagle ? In what way has the fish society let them know that they shouldn't be able to fly, and they're supposed to live in the ocean. It's obviously ? not innate, is it?
So yes, it is innate.
Culturally constructed gender identities. Not innate biological difference. A brief look at a few ethnographies will wisen you up. (By the way, what kind of biological cause do you propose for men wanting to be engineers more often than women?!)
Original post by Krov
Ms. X is quite beautiful, and has been graced with excessively good looks. With her smarts, she is able to manipulate men in order to live off their generous donations, given under the false belief that she gave one crap about them.
Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.
What do X and Y have in common ? They are both ass.holes.
What can be done to counter this ?
Nothing.
Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.
What do X and Y have in common ? They are both ass.holes.
What can be done to counter this ?
Nothing.
This, along with the remaining entirety of your post, represents an absence of critical thinking. Can you seriously not see anything wrong with what you have written above? Why don't all huge, well-built men choose to rape?! You are simply making massive assumptions, injected with very dubious personal opinion, to form erroneous arguments.
Did you say you lectured people on this subject? Lets hope you were abruptly fired.
It's come a long way, the reason why you don't see such great leaps is because ... they've been done! I'm not saying the situation is perfect but I bet there's not much stopping a woman doing bloody well nowadays, apart from actual differences between the sexes which seem to be built in to the DNA (I'm talking about things like: men tend to have more muscle). And factors like that don't really add much anyway.
Original post by missygeorgia
Sexes don't have 'innate characteristics'. The whole idea that there is anything innate about sexuality is disproven by the existence of homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, drag queens, transvestites, asexuals, masculine women, feminine men, hermaphrodites, career women, house-husbands. There is absolutely nothing innate about gender. Gender is a complete construction. Read some queer theory, it will completely blow your argument out of the window.
Also, since you say you don't dismiss gender studies, I can reassure you that any respectable gender studies scholar or writer would laugh in your face if you told them there's no point in decontructing gender.
Also, since you say you don't dismiss gender studies, I can reassure you that any respectable gender studies scholar or writer would laugh in your face if you told them there's no point in decontructing gender.
I don't see how this 'queer theory' thing stops innate characteristics.
That would be like saying that the presence of intersexed people proves that men don't innately have a penis, unlike women.
Innate characteristics, yes, but sometimes it goes wrong. Biology is not perfect. That's why homosexuals and transsexuals and other queer types are in the minority. That's exactly what you'd expect with innate biological characteristics.
Plus, gender is a complete construction? I doubt all transsexuals would support you there. Most transsexuals would argue against you I think. Because it's something that they would never have chosen, and have fought against. They have tried to construct a gender which aligns with their sex, but fail, because they can't fight biology and their innate gender.
Original post by T-o dore
Culturally constructed gender identities. Not innate biological difference. A brief look at a few ethnographies will wisen you up. (By the way, what kind of biological cause do you propose for men wanting to be engineers more often than women?!)
This, along with the remaining entirety of your post, represents an absence of critical thinking. Can you seriously not see anything wrong with what you have written above? Why don't all huge, well-built men choose to rape?! You are simply making massive assumptions, injected with very dubious personal opinion, to form erroneous arguments.
Did you say you lectured people on this subject? Lets hope you were abruptly fired.
This, along with the remaining entirety of your post, represents an absence of critical thinking. Can you seriously not see anything wrong with what you have written above? Why don't all huge, well-built men choose to rape?! You are simply making massive assumptions, injected with very dubious personal opinion, to form erroneous arguments.
Did you say you lectured people on this subject? Lets hope you were abruptly fired.
You, sir, are retarded.
a) An Ethnography, being a Sociology technique is dwarfed by medecine.
Science > Pseudo-science. So I needn't even take a look at one of these. Cold, hard science disproves any theory of cultural construct on the spot.
b) You seem to lack a brain. I said a certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals. Not all of them.
And while all strong men do not rape, they are far more tempted, if only because they have the means to do it, so my point still stands.
"I am making massive assumptions with personal opinions "Can an opinion not be personal ? Do you even know what you are saying ?
I am making a general reasoning in order to be broadly applicable. That's not a personal opinion.
If you think the axiom of "people are *******s" is just a personal opinion, then it's one I share with Pascal, Nietzsche, Freud, Kierkegaard, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Oscar Wilde, Diogenes, Mill, Marx etc.
Try to make a point without some basic axiomatic preambles, and then we'll talk, Einstein.
Meanwhile, I've yet to see someone oppose me with actual arguments, instead of whining with terrible ad hominems. If you're going for personal attacks, at least make it classy. And there's no firing someone for a few lectures in gender studies, since it's barely a subject and most intelligent people can make up a theory on Social Sciences on the spot, that's how hard it is.
I'm still waiting for a neurosurgeon to say I'm full of crap, because that's what it would take to tell me men's and women's brain are in fact not differently wired. And since the psyche contains the gender of the person, then it's biologically-determined, and not culturally determined.
Publish a study showing that culture alters brain cells in a meaningful way, until then, I've won. But I still would win, since such a study would prove the theory of racialism and it would cause a ****storm of trolling in the scientific community.
I forgot : "By the way, what kind of biological cause do you propose for men wanting to be engineers more often than women?!"
A higher capacity for synthesis, as opposed to women's capacity of analysis (neuroscience yet again saves the day). It would be my guess. A lower capacity for cerebral 3D-mapping has also been suggested by a few studies (women have difficulties translating maps into their head).
And I seem to recall Harvard's University director claiming women aren't as good at math. Caused a ****storm, but has since been proven, if I recall correctly.
Neuroscience has proved that the brains work differently. How exactly has not yet been determined, at this point we can only make an hypothesis.
Ever wondered how women could multi-task so efficiently ?
Also, a study was just published and suggested that women had a lesser capacity for relaxation, and their brain stayed permanently on a more active level. That might be a cause or a consequence (who knows at this point ?) of their multi-tasking abilities.
Don't be close-minded.
Educate yourself.
And you might just become smart someday.
P.S.: Trying to make a point with an Ethnography, it made me LoL. You don't see many scholars quoting Émile Zola to prove a point. Seriously...
In my opinion the feminist movement was started for the right reasons and the basic tenets of it are sound. Unfortunately it was manipulated by all sorts of interest groups extremely quickly, such as man haters, lesbians , politicians the media and even big business.
My mum was in a feminist movement at the height of it, but she said certain members became influenced by the extremes, it was never about living seperate from men or hating men or doing to men,what some men had done to women ,but about living alongside men and being equal. When she met my Dad basically and fell in love with him, she felt increasingly uncomfortable with where the movement was heading.
But it isn't just the manhaters, I firmly believe the media and big business, have got involved and coruppted it, made young girls think it is 'liberating ' to have loads of sex and drink and behave like men. To have multiple partners, or that stripping or escort work is liberating. Perhaps it is for some, and certainly the amount of women with pimps or trafficked was grossley exaggerated by the likes of harriet harperson, but I think many women do it out of necessity,or because something isn't quite right in their lives.
Because I know how sexist it is to say this,but I will say it anyway,men and women see sex differently and I can't see many women enjoying having sex with loads of men they don't know for money.Men is another matter. And now you have women getting what were typically male health problems and the numbers of women who have committed violent offences has skyrocketed.
There is still a need in my view for a feminist movement today,but in my view it needs to not shy away from attacking islam for instance which it does, and it needs to clean itself up. My mum and a woman who used to teach me at school who was also in a feminst movement, old style feminists seriously think something went wrong somewhere,and lots of what has gone on now with girls and between the genders they never wanted.
My mum was in a feminist movement at the height of it, but she said certain members became influenced by the extremes, it was never about living seperate from men or hating men or doing to men,what some men had done to women ,but about living alongside men and being equal. When she met my Dad basically and fell in love with him, she felt increasingly uncomfortable with where the movement was heading.
But it isn't just the manhaters, I firmly believe the media and big business, have got involved and coruppted it, made young girls think it is 'liberating ' to have loads of sex and drink and behave like men. To have multiple partners, or that stripping or escort work is liberating. Perhaps it is for some, and certainly the amount of women with pimps or trafficked was grossley exaggerated by the likes of harriet harperson, but I think many women do it out of necessity,or because something isn't quite right in their lives.
Because I know how sexist it is to say this,but I will say it anyway,men and women see sex differently and I can't see many women enjoying having sex with loads of men they don't know for money.Men is another matter. And now you have women getting what were typically male health problems and the numbers of women who have committed violent offences has skyrocketed.
There is still a need in my view for a feminist movement today,but in my view it needs to not shy away from attacking islam for instance which it does, and it needs to clean itself up. My mum and a woman who used to teach me at school who was also in a feminst movement, old style feminists seriously think something went wrong somewhere,and lots of what has gone on now with girls and between the genders they never wanted.
Original post by Krov
a) An Ethnography, being a Sociology technique is dwarfed by medecine.
Science > Pseudo-science. So I needn't even take a look at one of these. Cold, hard science disproves any theory of cultural construct on the spot.
a) An Ethnography, being a Sociology technique is dwarfed by medecine.
Science > Pseudo-science. So I needn't even take a look at one of these. Cold, hard science disproves any theory of cultural construct on the spot.
Okay, give me an example of how science has 'dwarfed' ethnography.
Ethnography is useful in seeing how cultural construction of gendered identities can differ. It can be used to verify or dispute scientific theories: for example the claim that in all societies, females are subservient to men. Such a claim can be offset by the example of the !Kung, where extensive sexual egalitarianism, and considerable overlapping of the activities and spheres of influence of men and women has been observed.
It can TEST the pervasiveness of certain types of gendered distinctions. And I can give you a lot of scholarly work that argues ethnography is, in fact, a scientific technique.
Original post by Krov
b) You seem to lack a brain. I said a certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals. Not all of them.
Lets quote you again, shall we?
Original post by Krov
Ms. X is quite beautiful, and has been graced with excessively good looks. With her smarts, she is able to manipulate men in order to live off their generous donations, given under the false belief that she gave one crap about them.
Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.
Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.
Where in your above comparison do you indicate merely a 'certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals'?
Original post by Krov
And while all strong men do not rape, they are far more tempted, if only because they have the means to do it, so my point still stands.
Original post by Krov
"I am making massive assumptions with personal opinions "Can an opinion not be personal ? Do you even know what you are saying ?.
You claim to represent a scientific approach, but can a 'scientific' thesis be opinion-based?
Original post by Krov
If you think the axiom of "people are *******s" is just a personal opinion, then it's one I share with Pascal, Nietzsche, Freud, Kierkegaard, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Oscar Wilde, Diogenes, Mill, Marx etc.
Try to make a point without some basic axiomatic preambles, and then we'll talk, Einstein.
Try to make a point without some basic axiomatic preambles, and then we'll talk, Einstein.
The axiom, as you describe it, "people are *******s", cannot be attributed to the list of famous scholars as if it boulsters your point! FIRSTLY, each of those names differs HUGELY in their methodology and their specific views - in what was is Freud communicative with Oscar Wilde?! SECOND, many of these arguments, though influential and interesting, do not align with current opinion.
FINALLY - no respectable scholar BEGINS an argument by making a huge assumption or a sweeping generalisation without any basis in evidence (which is the meaning of an 'axiomatic preamble').
Original post by Krov
I'm still waiting for a neurosurgeon to say I'm full of crap, because that's what it would take to tell me men's and women's brain are in fact not differently wired. And since the psyche contains the gender of the person, then it's biologically-determined, and not culturally determined.
You clearly have no comprehension of the litererature that exists.
Go and take a read of C. Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' (a basic introduction to a vast field of enquiry). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/184831163X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291105646&sr=8-1
Besides, to say there are differences between the sexes is VERY different to saying they are 'biologically determined'. Thats just a basic principle you seem to ignore.
Original post by Krov
Publish a study showing that culture alters brain cells in a meaningful way, until then, I've won. But I still would win, since such a study would prove the theory of racialism and it would cause a ****storm of trolling in the scientific community.
It doesn't have to 'alter brain cells' to inform ones behaviour. Are you suggesting features of gender distinction are universally the same?
Biological determinism just doesn't work in relation to gender distinction.
Original post by Krov
I forgot : "By the way, what kind of biological cause do you propose for men wanting to be engineers more often than women?!"
A higher capacity for synthesis, as opposed to women's capacity of analysis (neuroscience yet again saves the day). It would be my guess. A lower capacity for cerebral 3D-mapping has also been suggested by a few studies (women have difficulties translating maps into their head).
And I seem to recall Harvard's University director claiming women aren't as good at math. Caused a ****storm, but has since been proven, if I recall correctly.
A higher capacity for synthesis, as opposed to women's capacity of analysis (neuroscience yet again saves the day). It would be my guess. A lower capacity for cerebral 3D-mapping has also been suggested by a few studies (women have difficulties translating maps into their head).
And I seem to recall Harvard's University director claiming women aren't as good at math. Caused a ****storm, but has since been proven, if I recall correctly.
Lets have a look at some proper arguments, shall we?
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.full
Original post by Krov
P.S.: Trying to make a point with an Ethnography, it made me LoL. You don't see many scholars quoting Émile Zola to prove a point. Seriously...
I find it really hard to take you seriously. Have you taken a glance at any social science recently? The entire field of social anthropology hinges upon ethnography, which is employed by a whole host of other disciplines. You're simply wrong!
Original post by T-o dore
T-o dore
....
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html
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.
The source you linked uncover a statement from an ONCOLOGIST, now explain to me how in comparison to leading neuroscientists her statement has any weight?
I fond it ironic that the father of sociology said himself that there were differences between men and women in terms of brain structure. (first link) explain that...
Furthermore, explain the clear differences between women and men in other terms. Boys are far more likely to be proactive and rugged owing to the genetics of being the hunter. Women are more likely care more about relationships than men.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Ocassus
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html
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.
Furthermore, explain the clear differences between women and men in other terms. Boys are far more likely to be proactive and rugged owing to the genetics of being the hunter. Women are more likely care more about relationships than men.
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.
Furthermore, explain the clear differences between women and men in other terms. Boys are far more likely to be proactive and rugged owing to the genetics of being the hunter. Women are more likely care more about relationships than men.
I'm NOT denying there are biological differences and evolved strategies that are more common to men than women. Interesting to that debate is M. Ridley's 'red queen' book, which talks about how sexual selection still informs some social patterns.
HOWEVER, I am saying that biological factors are not everything. If they were, there would not be the massive diversity across cultures in the way gender is practiced and expressed.
I'm saying that strictly biological determinist positions fail to take in to account the flexibility of expression which they seem to have. Cultural/historical factors are also important! Especially in how gender is practiced, sustained, and related to different spheres of society. Basically, I deny the proposition that social science has nothing to say about gender.
Original post by Ocassus
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.
The source you linked uncover a statement from an ONCOLOGIST, now explain to me how in comparison to leading neuroscientists her statement has any weight?
.
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.
The source you linked uncover a statement from an ONCOLOGIST, now explain to me how in comparison to leading neuroscientists her statement has any weight?
.
Have you read the article you have linked to?!
"Our review of a substantial literature on the human CC does not support any sex-related difference in the size or shape of the splenium, whether or not adjustments are made for whole brain or cortex size. Because no significant sex difference is established for the splenium, there is no reason to speculate about its possible contribution to cognitive gender differences."...." there are no sex-specific differences in the size of the corpus callosum"....
Original post by lightburns
I don't see how this 'queer theory' thing stops innate characteristics.
That would be like saying that the presence of intersexed people proves that men don't innately have a penis, unlike women.
Innate characteristics, yes, but sometimes it goes wrong. Biology is not perfect. That's why homosexuals and transsexuals and other queer types are in the minority. That's exactly what you'd expect with innate biological characteristics.
That would be like saying that the presence of intersexed people proves that men don't innately have a penis, unlike women.
Innate characteristics, yes, but sometimes it goes wrong. Biology is not perfect. That's why homosexuals and transsexuals and other queer types are in the minority. That's exactly what you'd expect with innate biological characteristics.
But 'queer' people, in the way I mean it, just aren't in the minority. People who defy gender stereotypes, people who have odd sexualities, weird quirks- pretty much EVERYONE has 'gone wrong' regarding innate gender characteristics. A huge amount of women don't want children, or are bisexual, or are unfeminine. A huge amount of men are very emotional, are bad at science and great at writing poetry, and, I don't know, are vegetarians. Pretty much every individual in the word defies their gender role in a very significant way, and this completely undermines the idea of anything being essential in being a man or a woman.
Original post by lightburns
I don't see how this 'queer theory' thing stops innate characteristics.
That would be like saying that the presence of intersexed people proves that men don't innately have a penis, unlike women.
Innate characteristics, yes, but sometimes it goes wrong. Biology is not perfect. That's why homosexuals and transsexuals and other queer types are in the minority. That's exactly what you'd expect with innate biological characteristics.
Plus, gender is a complete construction? I doubt all transsexuals would support you there. Most transsexuals would argue against you I think. Because it's something that they would never have chosen, and have fought against. They have tried to construct a gender which aligns with their sex, but fail, because they can't fight biology and their innate gender.
That would be like saying that the presence of intersexed people proves that men don't innately have a penis, unlike women.
Innate characteristics, yes, but sometimes it goes wrong. Biology is not perfect. That's why homosexuals and transsexuals and other queer types are in the minority. That's exactly what you'd expect with innate biological characteristics.
Plus, gender is a complete construction? I doubt all transsexuals would support you there. Most transsexuals would argue against you I think. Because it's something that they would never have chosen, and have fought against. They have tried to construct a gender which aligns with their sex, but fail, because they can't fight biology and their innate gender.
Er, by getting a sex change, they ARE fighting biology. And I don't think 'most' transexuals would argue this at all.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Ellim
t a few branches of feminism have 'ruined' the public image of the overall cause. Originally feminists were fighting for equality - as the majority of feminist movements are today. Some, however, have take it too far and it seems to have swung into misandry.
I agree, although I do think that the 'major' battles (e.g. voting rights for women etc) have been won. You are right though that some feminists continue to plough on and are in danger of pushing the the balance the other way. In some areas the balance has already been tipped. On example is child maintainace/custody after a divorce. My uncle and aunt split up a few years ago and she gets child maintainence even though she is richer than him and he looks after thier children a lot more more than she does.
I suppose one could argue that my own anecdotal evidence is only an isolated case but then the existence of groups like fathers for justice would seem to suggest otherwise.
Original post by missygeorgia
But 'queer' people, in the way I mean it, just aren't in the minority. People who defy gender stereotypes, people who have odd sexualities, weird quirks- pretty much EVERYONE has 'gone wrong' regarding innate gender characteristics. A huge amount of women don't want children, or are bisexual, or are unfeminine. A huge amount of men are very emotional, are bad at science and great at writing poetry, and, I don't know, are vegetarians. Pretty much every individual in the word defies their gender role in a very significant way, and this completely undermines the idea of anything being essential in being a man or a woman.
Eee, good points here.
With the numbers of women who don't want children - I guess it doesn't make all that much difference biologically because they wouldn't have had a choice. A long time ago, humans wouldn't have put 2 and 2 together to work out that sex = children.
I do agree that culture etc. plays a part. There are general statements you can make regarding men and women, and there are brain differences (eg. women have a larger brain part for language, I'm about to go out so can't find the reference right now).
I think at the end of the day we don't disagree that much.. we both seem to agree that biology and environment play a part. We just disagree over which is more important. Except for things like below..
Original post by missygeorgia
Er, by getting a sex change, they ARE fighting biology. And I don't think 'most' transexuals would argue this at all.
They are fighting biology by getting a sex change, yes, because sex is easier to change than their innate biological gender.
One of them has got to go. Gender, a 'construction', seems pretty much impossible to shift.
Original post by T-o dore
Okay, give me an example of how science has 'dwarfed' ethnography.
Ethnography is useful in seeing how cultural construction of gendered identities can differ. It can be used to verify or dispute scientific theories: for example the claim that in all societies, females are subservient to men. Such a claim can be offset by the example of the !Kung, where extensive sexual egalitarianism, and considerable overlapping of the activities and spheres of influence of men and women has been observed.
It can TEST the pervasiveness of certain types of gendered distinctions. And I can give you a lot of scholarly work that argues ethnography is, in fact, a scientific technique.
Lets quote you again, shall we?
Oh, and without going into details, even science is based on what you call "opinions".
To do math, you have to opiniate that 1+1 = 2, that the world exists and that rationality is coherent. Everything has its axiomatic.
Hell, gravity is an opinion.
Where in your above comparison do you indicate merely a 'certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals'?
You claim to represent a scientific approach, but can a 'scientific' thesis be opinion-based?
The axiom, as you describe it, "people are *******s", cannot be attributed to the list of famous scholars as if it boulsters your point! FIRSTLY, each of those names differs HUGELY in their methodology and their specific views - in what was is Freud communicative with Oscar Wilde?! SECOND, many of these arguments, though influential and interesting, do not align with current opinion.
FINALLY - no respectable scholar BEGINS an argument by making a huge assumption or a sweeping generalisation without any basis in evidence (which is the meaning of an 'axiomatic preamble').
You clearly have no comprehension of the litererature that exists.
Go and take a read of C. Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' (a basic introduction to a vast field of enquiry). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/184831163X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291105646&sr=8-1
Besides, to say there are differences between the sexes is VERY different to saying they are 'biologically determined'. Thats just a basic principle you seem to ignore.
It doesn't have to 'alter brain cells' to inform ones behaviour. Are you suggesting features of gender distinction are universally the same?
Biological determinism just doesn't work in relation to gender distinction.
Lets have a look at some proper arguments, shall we?
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.full
I find it really hard to take you seriously. Have you taken a glance at any social science recently? The entire field of social anthropology hinges upon ethnography, which is employed by a whole host of other disciplines. You're simply wrong!
Ethnography is useful in seeing how cultural construction of gendered identities can differ. It can be used to verify or dispute scientific theories: for example the claim that in all societies, females are subservient to men. Such a claim can be offset by the example of the !Kung, where extensive sexual egalitarianism, and considerable overlapping of the activities and spheres of influence of men and women has been observed.
It can TEST the pervasiveness of certain types of gendered distinctions. And I can give you a lot of scholarly work that argues ethnography is, in fact, a scientific technique.
Lets quote you again, shall we?
Oh, and without going into details, even science is based on what you call "opinions".
To do math, you have to opiniate that 1+1 = 2, that the world exists and that rationality is coherent. Everything has its axiomatic.
Hell, gravity is an opinion.
Where in your above comparison do you indicate merely a 'certain proportion of people disregard morals in order to attain selfish goals'?
You claim to represent a scientific approach, but can a 'scientific' thesis be opinion-based?
The axiom, as you describe it, "people are *******s", cannot be attributed to the list of famous scholars as if it boulsters your point! FIRSTLY, each of those names differs HUGELY in their methodology and their specific views - in what was is Freud communicative with Oscar Wilde?! SECOND, many of these arguments, though influential and interesting, do not align with current opinion.
FINALLY - no respectable scholar BEGINS an argument by making a huge assumption or a sweeping generalisation without any basis in evidence (which is the meaning of an 'axiomatic preamble').
You clearly have no comprehension of the litererature that exists.
Go and take a read of C. Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' (a basic introduction to a vast field of enquiry). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusions-Gender-Science-Behind-Differences/dp/184831163X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291105646&sr=8-1
Besides, to say there are differences between the sexes is VERY different to saying they are 'biologically determined'. Thats just a basic principle you seem to ignore.
It doesn't have to 'alter brain cells' to inform ones behaviour. Are you suggesting features of gender distinction are universally the same?
Biological determinism just doesn't work in relation to gender distinction.
Lets have a look at some proper arguments, shall we?
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.full
I find it really hard to take you seriously. Have you taken a glance at any social science recently? The entire field of social anthropology hinges upon ethnography, which is employed by a whole host of other disciplines. You're simply wrong!
I give up, you clearly don't understand what I'm writing.
My list of philosophers all share the same view on Mankind, whatever you say.
And all respectable scholars DO begin with a clear axiomatic preamble.
By the way, you fail to provide any solid data with your links. As of November 2010, male and female brains are proved to be different, and thus are suggested to work differently.
As Alfred Sauvy said himself "If you torture numbers enough, they'll confess to anything" so your invoked pile of statistics fails to impress me.
I still maintain that gender is biologically constructed, although modalities may or may not appear due to specific social configurations (main explanation for sexual deviation - deviant meaning out of the norm, on a pure mathematical level - , such as homosexuality).
I take many glances at Social Science, which so far, has never, ever, ever, proved anything at all.
An Ethnography can hardly dispute anything, since it's so blatantly myopic, subjectif, restricted in time and perimeter, and its defining characteristics so blurry. It's just a cute tool for sociologists.
I'm sorry, but I have science on my side today. I'll admit I'm wrong the day that scientists show the heterogeneous wiring was a lull. But I'd still be very sceptical about it.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Krov
My list of philosophers all share the same view on Mankind, whatever you say.
And all respectable scholars DO begin with a clear axiomatic preamble.
My list of philosophers all share the same view on Mankind, whatever you say.
And all respectable scholars DO begin with a clear axiomatic preamble.
I'm sorry, but its just laughable to compare the statement 'all humans are ass.holes' with laws of mathematics or rigorously proven theorems central to the workings of science. What is the difference? The latter examples are accepted truths, AXIOMS, whilst the former is a very spurious and generalised opinion.
More ridiculous is the fact that you seem to believe the arguments of 'Pascal, Nietzsche, Freud, Kierkegaard, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Oscar Wilde, Diogenes, Mill, Marx' to be heterogenous, when in fact they hail from widely different disciplines, argue on completely differing subjects, and their actual conclusions are nothing like 'all humans are innately bad'.
Even if it were, it would be the CONCLUSION, or INFERENCE of the argument, NOT the starting point, as you suggested with the term 'axiomatic preamble'.
Anyway. The point completely diverges from the thread.
Original post by Krov
By the way, you fail to provide any solid data with your links. As of November 2010, male and female brains are proved to be different, and thus are suggested to work differently.
Really?! You accuse me of failing to provide data, yet you go ahead and make a big claim without any hint of rooting in evidence. In any case, I am sure that women and men are biologically, and perhaps cognitively, different. However it isn't a simple matter of dualism, and also biological influence does not equal biological determinism.
Crucially: biological differences do not account for the wide ranging cultural elaborations of gender.
Original post by Krov
As Alfred Sauvy said himself "If you torture numbers enough, they'll confess to anything" so your invoked pile of statistics fails to impress me.
What 'invoked' pile of statistics?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Advise on this date
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- A weird situation.
- Hinge/Tinder
- How to approach girls on campus?
- Is it really possible for two persons of opposite sex to be best friends only?
- Girls find only 20% of guys attractive
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- Am I unattractive? What is it?
- The Green Mile - Of Mice And Men
- possible to reverse?
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 1 (7192/1) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]
- Which book should I compare The Bloody Chamber to?
- I am not sure how to approach my crush at my college
- Always rejected by girls for a bad guy
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 14th June [Exam Chat]
- A-level Politics Study Group 2023-2024
- if a girl has a heart emoji in her insta bio is she taken???
- Boyfriend - latex fetish?
- Do you get fed up if you are not one of the good looking people
Latest
Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official Cranfield University Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 29 minutes ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 29 minutes ago
Why does he act different with me do I make him shy or what ?Last reply 1 hour ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Last reply 1 hour ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 1 hour ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteTrending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
