The Civilization vs Womanisation Graph - agree or disagree?

Watch
drake10
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I came across this interesting graph.



It claims that as society becomes more politically correct / feels-driven / womanised it becomes less capable of progress, and eventually declines.

Are the problems in society ultimately down to society becoming too femininised? Do we need a return to hard-headed realism rather than pretending pretty little lies like "everyone is equally capable"?
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Not every individual is "equally capable" however as a gender/group women are as a whole equally capable. Which problems in society are you specifying here as being caused by an overly feminised society?

It also depends what you consider society should be moving towards. Personally I'd prefer for politicians to not be "feels driven", but to consider vulnerable individuals and real people in their policies rather than just how the economy is doing.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
But according to the graph, civilization peaks at a fairly high level of 'womanization'
3
reply
drake10
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Charlottelt)
Not every individual is "equally capable" however as a gender/group women are as a whole equally capable.
Do you have any evidence for this or is this just a feels-driven statement?

If you had two groups of people, Group A and Group B, and the over the course of thousands of years in every country and culture, the top scientists, businesspeople, politicians, composers, artists, architects, religious founders, etc were all from Group A, would you say that Group A and Group B are equally capable?

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
But according to the graph, civilization peaks at a fairly high level of 'womanization'
Yes the x-axis should more appropriately be called "time" with an additional curve of "womanisation" added to the graph (roughly an exponential).
0
reply
pink pineapple
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
No, the problems in society are caused by many things.
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by drake10)
If you had two groups of people, Group A and Group B, and the over the course of thousands of years in every country and culture, the top scientists, businesspeople, politicians, composers, artists, architects, religious founders, etc were all from Group A, would you say that Group A and Group B are equally capable?.
You forget to factor in the oppression of Group B. If Group B were suspected of witchcraft or oppressed by social norms, religion, culture, etc then of course they won't make up the majority of those top roles which you listed.

Since psychology is my speciality I implore you to look at the work of Rosenthal which was first demonstrated on rats and then children. When you get two groups (A and B if you will) which are as identical as scientifically possible and tell people one group is "bright" and the other one is "dull" (not clever/stupid) then the group labelled as bright will become bright. The people who are in their care believe they have more potential and therefore nurture them towards high power positions, hard work and success. The rats and children in the "dull" condition were unfortunately ignored, not pushed and essentially, given up on.

So when one group is labelled as "dull" it is uncommon for them to be able to break out of that group, especially when at every level of society the "dull" label is plastered on your forehead.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Everything else aside, what have YOU ever achieved OP?
0
reply
Spetznaaz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Charlottelt)
You forget to factor in the oppression of Group B. If Group B were suspected of witchcraft or oppressed by social norms, religion, culture, etc then of course they won't make up the majority of those top roles which you listed.

Since psychology is my speciality I implore you to look at the work of Rosenthal which was first demonstrated on rats and then children. When you get two groups (A and B if you will) which are as identical as scientifically possible and tell people one group is "bright" and the other one is "dull" (not clever/stupid) then the group labelled as bright will become bright. The people who are in their care believe they have more potential and therefore nurture them towards high power positions, hard work and success. The rats and children in the "dull" condition were unfortunately ignored, not pushed and essentially, given up on.

So when one group is labelled as "dull" it is uncommon for them to be able to break out of that group, especially when at every level of society the "dull" label is plastered on your forehead.
How could anyone ethically label a group of Children as "dull"? If what you say is true, and the findings of the study indicated being labelled dull made them dull, then that study technically created a group of retards and would be highly unethical..

Or is it more likely that they looked at a group of children who were already considered "dull" and a group already considered smart..?

Edit - Also are you implying that in school females are not pushed/nurtured/whatever as much as males.. cause it's been ten years since i was in school and i can tell you that was simply not the case. In fact the "retard" classes consisted mostly of men.
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Spetznaaz)
How could anyone ethically label a group of Children as "dull"? If what you say is true, and the findings of the study indicated being labelled dull made them dull, then that study technically created a group of retards and would be highly unethical..

Or is it more likely that they looked at a group of children who were already considered "dull" and a group already considered smart..?
Psychologists have been pretty damn unethical over time trust me. This study is timid in comparison to some. :l
I think they changed it to just highlighting children who were "ready to bloom" as they put it. So they didn't identify children as idiots, they just pointed out ones who had particular potential (even though they didn't and were no different to those not selected to be in the "ready to bloom" group).

Didn't see the edit:
This is not the case in all areas and education has become more equal. There are still however gender roles from birth which are putting children into place of what they can and can't do. Construction kits, doctors/mechanic outfits, etc whereas girls get plastic kitchens, babies and beauty sets. So before children even start school they have limits on what they think they can or can't do. This means that there are a lack of role models for young girls in those areas and the whole thing starts again.
0
reply
Spetznaaz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Charlottelt)
Psychologists have been pretty damn unethical over time trust me. This study is timid in comparison to some. :l
I think they changed it to just highlighting children who were "ready to bloom" as they put it. So they didn't identify children as idiots, they just pointed out ones who had particular potential (even though they didn't and were no different to those not selected to be in the "ready to bloom" group).
Yes, but the point i was making was, by the sounds of it, all the study you mentioned showed, was that children who are seen as "bright" do better than children who are seen as "dull".. well duh, of course.. I don't even need to explain why that's the case.

Didn't see the edit:
This is not the case in all areas and education has become more equal. There are still however gender roles from birth which are putting children into place of what they can and can't do. Construction kits, doctors/mechanic outfits, etc whereas girls get plastic kitchens, babies and beauty sets. So before children even start school they have limits on what they think they can or can't do. This means that there are a lack of role models for young girls in those areas and the whole thing starts again.
You say education has become more equal, yet as i say 10-15 years ago education was pretty damn equal in my school, i wouldn't be surprised if it had become "more equal" for females now.

I'm pretty sure there have been numerous studies showing males and females having preference over different things from birth. Believe it or not, men and women have many significant differences, this is not my opinion, it is sexual dimorphism.

I really don't understand why you feminists can't just accept that men and women are different, both physically and mentally.

Also i'm pretty sure your social class has way more bearing, statistically, on the outcome of your life. In OUR society, Men and Women have equal rights and opportunities, as they should and women are in no way oppressed. The law does however favor women, being a woman has many benefits in fact, and yet you feminists always act like you're poor little victims who have it so hard.. you have NO idea what life like a man is like.

In regards to this thread, while i don't consider women lesser beings than men, a few hard facts are true:

Men are significantly stronger than women, same goes for endurance. Men are also obviously much more dominant. Male athletes will always excel over female.

Research shows more men lie at the far ends of the iq curve, meaning more men are retards, more men are genii. Men invented pretty much everything.. the top blah are men etc..

But none of us would even be here without women and of course there are many women who are more useful/nice human beings than men.

Cliffs:

- BIOLOGY not "PATRIARCHY"
- Feminism is poison and has the potential to take us backwards if it fully takes hold
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Progress here defined as...what?

*Awaits some liberal historicist horse*****
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by drake10)
I came across this interesting graph.



It claims that as society becomes more politically correct / feels-driven / womanised it becomes less capable of progress, and eventually declines.

Are the problems in society ultimately down to society becoming too femininised? Do we need a return to hard-headed realism rather than pretending pretty little lies like "everyone is equally capable"?
God, how boring.

In short - no. Which problems, exactly, are you referring to? Can you point to a time of "hard-headed realism" in which there were no socio-political problems? Or even economic?

Of course you ****ing can't.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Charlottelt)
Psychologists have been pretty damn unethical over time trust me. This study is timid in comparison to some. :l
I think they changed it to just highlighting children who were "ready to bloom" as they put it. So they didn't identify children as idiots, they just pointed out ones who had particular potential (even though they didn't and were no different to those not selected to be in the "ready to bloom" group).

Didn't see the edit:
This is not the case in all areas and education has become more equal. There are still however gender roles from birth which are putting children into place of what they can and can't do. Construction kits, doctors/mechanic outfits, etc whereas girls get plastic kitchens, babies and beauty sets. So before children even start school they have limits on what they think they can or can't do. This means that there are a lack of role models for young girls in those areas and the whole thing starts again.
Hi you

Couldn't agree more, seconded. Anyone denying that gender roles still oppress both boys and girls is ignorant.
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
Hi you

Couldn't agree more, seconded. Anyone denying that gender roles still oppress both boys and girls is ignorant.
*A wild feminist has appeared* Oh good my hannibal is here. I can rest now.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Charlottelt)
*A wild feminist has appeared* Oh good my hannibal is here. I can rest now.
I got this Rest easy Chucky.
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
I got this Rest easy Chucky.
Fabulous article about whether women are even more "feels-driven"; especially by nature rather than nurture. If there are differences they occur during socialisation.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-compassionate

I want to see science/evidence/examples supporting the other side of this argument.
0
reply
Charlottelt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Spetznaaz)
You say education has become more equal, yet as i say 10-15 years ago education was pretty damn equal in my school, i wouldn't be surprised if it had become "more equal" for females now.
Good. Equality is what we should be striving for hear. Everyone given equal opportunities.

I'm pretty sure there have been numerous studies showing males and females having preference over different things from birth.
As someone on a psychology degree I would be really interested in reading them. Can you provide links?

Believe it or not, men and women have many significant differences, this is not my opinion, it is sexual dimorphism.
sexual dimorphism is actually more about differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, as in colour, shape, size and structure and is often referred to when looking into animal mating behaviour. Would love to think we've evolved from ducks and their mating dances.

I really don't understand why you feminists can't just accept that men and women are different, both physically and mentally.
Oh we are. We definitely are physically. You've got more testosterone so you get muscles and a ****. Cognitively men are much better at mental rotation of objects but women are better at spatial memory.

Also i'm pretty sure your social class has way more bearing, statistically, on the outcome of your life.
Perhaps it's the bloody rich people screwing up society then rather than us gals?

In OUR society, Men and Women have equal rights and opportunities, as they should and women are in no way oppressed.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/68...-this-is-proof
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...ports-ONS.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...nder-wage-gap/

The law does however favor women, being a woman has many benefits in fact, and yet you feminists always act like you're poor little victims who have it so hard.. you have NO idea what life like a man is like.
Which law is this? ChocoLemons, you do law? Help him out here.

Men are significantly stronger than women, same goes for endurance. Men are also obviously much more dominant. Male athletes will always excel over female.
Yes for those physical characteristics and men are dominant in most of society. Is this because they use this higher physical ability to intimidate or threaten women or simply because they're socialised into being dominant I'm unsure but I'm fairly sure dominance isn't a genetic concept

Research shows more men lie at the far ends of the iq curve, meaning more men are retards, more men are genii. Men invented pretty much everything.. the top blah are men etc
Men are a lot more susceptible to/likely to get a whole host of learning difficulties unfortunately due to the size of the Y chromosome.

BIOLOGY not "PATRIARCHY"
If you're gonna play the biology card please highlight what specifically you're cracking on about. Provide links, etc.

Feminism is poison and has the potential to take us backwards if it fully takes hold
I don't even know how to respond to gender equality is poison. Um, it's not. It's just trying to make things a bit more fair for everyone.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Charlottelt)
Good. Equality is what we should be striving for hear. Everyone given equal opportunities.



As someone on a psychology degree I would be really interested in reading them. Can you provide links?



sexual dimorphism is actually more about differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, as in colour, shape, size and structure and is often referred to when looking into animal mating behaviour. Would love to think we've evolved from ducks and their mating dances.



Oh we are. We definitely are physically. You've got more testosterone so you get muscles and a ****. Cognitively men are much better at mental rotation of objects but women are better at spatial memory.



Perhaps it's the bloody rich people screwing up society then rather than us gals?



http://www.policymic.com/articles/68...-this-is-proof
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...ports-ONS.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...nder-wage-gap/



Which law is this? ChocoLemons, you do law? Help him out here.



Yes for those physical characteristics and men are dominant in most of society. Is this because they use this higher physical ability to intimidate or threaten women or simply because they're socialised into being dominant I'm unsure but I'm fairly sure dominance isn't a genetic concept



Men are a lot more susceptible to/likely to get a whole host of learning difficulties unfortunately due to the size of the Y chromosome.



If you're gonna play the biology card please highlight what specifically you're cracking on about. Provide links, etc.



I don't even know how to respond to gender equality is poison. Um, it's not. It's just trying to make things a bit more fair for everyone.
Happy to help! Women can sometimes be given less serious penalties, which is completely wrong. We should be treated the same. But aside from that - I'd love to know what men are charged with that women can't be charged with. And considering the law and entire legal system are completely biased towards hiring men instead of women (only one judge in the supreme court is female), I have no idea what you're on about.

But please, post some examples.
0
reply
the_lost_boy
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
That orange penis was drawn with MS paint. I doubt the accuracy of this post.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
Women's liberation is due to the advances in our society freeing up labour capacity. It no longer takes all of a couple's physical strength to work, to raise (2 not 8) children and to keep house.

That's not something women have to thank men for at all, it's just that men, as the workers, were the only ones in with a chance of really expanding their productivity, women were more limited to just finding efficiencies.

It comes with other lifestyle freedoms that result, essentially, from society's spare capacity to cope with, or even favour, childless couples (e.g. gay people), and to support those who are unable for whatever reason to participate in the economy (disabled, old, structurally unemployed).

Inevitably, an economy riding high on the financial stability of an empire is only good for the lifetime of that empire. As non-renewable resources are used up, and endless growth is continually demanded by the merchant class, the empire is destined to fall as soon as it reaches the limits of its expansionary potential and creditworthiness. And the first thing to go will be the social support systems for the people, not because they are necessarily the most expensive, but because their main stakeholders, the people, don't have any power.

Notice how women, and other groups right-wing reactionaries like you hate such as the disabled and gay people, have no part, much less agency, in the story.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (133)
29.82%
No (313)
70.18%

Watched Threads

View All