Gender Equality

[honk friend 1,978]

  On 2015-04-15 at 12:39 AM, pakicetus said:

Where is this this rational majority I keep hearing about, then? They're certainly not the people who write the 'feminist perspective' articles published by most of the outlets I've seen. 

 

That's kinda the point of why I said "vocal minority". There are plenty of awfully nice folk out there who call themselves feminists, but when most of the names you see in common media surrounding feminism are radical feminists, of course you might have a hard time believing we're not just a group that comes up with this non-existent patriarchy to use as a scapegoat for all the problems in a woman's life. 

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-14 at 11:52 PM, Commissar Alexer said:

Here's a question: Why are men aggressive?

It's an interesting question. I'd say it probably has something to do with social programming, and something to do with genetics. Men's brains are hard wired for agression in a way female brains are not. A larger part of the male brain is devoted to tracking moving objects, violence, and sex. The same real estate in the female brain is devoted to communication, empathy, and a drive to create networks of supporters. I'm not saying that women are better people because of it. Just that their skill set seems better suited to developed society.

 

What's your take on it?

[pakicetus 312]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 3:28 AM, Aidan OGain said:

Just that their skill set seems better suited to developed society.

 

 

Emotion is overrated when it comes to politics. Pragmatism, please.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 2:13 AM, Tsaritsa Luna said:

Perhaps the most obvious of this is... the average male is probably more likely to get job involving intense physical labour than average female; that's not discrimination but rather sort of inequality that makes sense.

 

Pretty much this. Fairness > equality.

[Silver Letter 1,832]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 3:28 AM, Aidan OGain said:

A larger part of the male brain is devoted to tracking moving objects, violence, and sex.

If that was true then those skills would be universal, no?

[Professor Annabella 330]

Uh.... I'd rather not be equal to men. We;re equal, but different. Do realize if we were completely equal and the same, then women would have to sign up for the draft. Uh, no thanks!

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-15 at 4:36 AM, pakicetus said:

Emotion is overrated when it comes to politics. Pragmatism, please.

 

 

 

Pretty much this. Fairness > equality.

I'd argue, as a man, we are not as pragmatic or rational or unemotional as we like to think we are.

[~Kitty~ 165]

Before you guys post, I think you should double check to make sure you haven't said anything offensive. Some things are better off left unsaid.

[pakicetus 312]

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:18 AM, Aidan OGain said:

I'd argue, as a man, we are not as pragmatic or rational or unemotional as we like to think we are.

 

Yup. Probably a reason politics is such shit right now.

 

That said, women tend to be more responsive to emotion. So, I think that would probably be a step in the wrong direction.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:33 AM, ~Rosie~ said:

Before you guys post, I think you should double check to make sure you haven't said anything offensive.

 

I'd rather have people checking wether their claims true.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 5:41 AM, Silver Letter said:

If that was true then those skills would be universal, no?

 

Well, for one, it's actually true.

 

I don't see why you think these trends would have to be universal.

Edited April 15, 2015 by pakicetus

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-15 at 5:41 AM, Silver Letter said:

If that was true then those skills would be universal, no?

It's not universal. Our species is diverse. However, they are strong trends. It's what drives little boys to like trucks and action figures and little girls to like dolls and tea sets. There will always be exceptions, but the toy industry is well adapted to take advantage of those strong trends.

 

They've done experiments where you give a girl a red fire truck and she'll wrap it in a blanket and say "it's okay, truckie. Everything is going to be all right" give a boy some Barbie dolls and he'll make them fight. Not all the time, but often enough for us to see it's the brain, not the culture that's doing it. The culture simply reinforces it and punishes deviance. (not that I agree with culture for doing so)

 

Men tend toward mechanical professions and women toward social professions for that same reason. But nothing is universal and there are plenty of exceptions. Not to mention if a person has the will, the ingenuity and the commitment, they can overcome any biological "handicap".

 

However, violent crime is more a male thing than a female thing. Females commit violent crime, but not in the numbers males do. That's one reason I think the female brain is better adapted to contemporary life. They cause less direct mayhem and tend to work toward consensus.

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:33 AM, ~Rosie~ said:

Before you guys post, I think you should double check to make sure you haven't said anything offensive. Some things are better off left unsaid.

I'm sorry Rosie if I hurt anyone's feelings. Please let me know so I can correct myself. I don't want anyone thinking that I mean something hurtful. So if I've said anything to offend, I beg forgiveness.

[pakicetus 312]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:34 AM, Aidan OGain said:

They've done experiments where you give a girl a red fire truck and she'll wrap it in a blanket and say "it's okay, truckie. Everything is going to be all right" give a boy some Barbie dolls and he'll make them fight. Not all the time, but often enough for us to see it's the brain, not the culture that's doing it. The culture simply reinforces it and punishes deviance. (not that I agree with culture for doing so)

 

 

I'd also like to add that gender roles have been observed amongst chimpanzees.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:34 AM, Aidan OGain said:

That's one reason I think the female brain is better adapted to contemporary life. They cause less direct mayhem and tend to work toward consensus.

 

Higher responsiveness to emotion is worrying, though.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-14 at 6:02 PM, Aidan OGain said:

But examining the issue closer, race has no meaning in biology.

 

Uh, no. It does. 

[~Kitty~ 165]

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:38 AM, Aidan OGain said:

It's not universal. Our species is diverse. However, they are strong trends. It's what drives little boys to like trucks and action figures and little girls to like dolls and tea sets. There will always be exceptions, but the toy industry is well adapted to take advantage of those strong trends.

They've done experiments where you give a girl a red fire truck and she'll wrap it in a blanket and say "it's okay, truckie. Everything is going to be all right" give a boy some Barbie dolls and he'll make them fight. Not all the time, but often enough for us to see it's the brain, not the culture that's doing it. The culture simply reinforces it and punishes deviance. (not that I agree with culture for doing so)

Men tend toward mechanical professions and women toward social professions for that same reason. But nothing is universal and there are plenty of exceptions. Not to mention if a person has the will, the ingenuity and the commitment, they can overcome any biological "handicap".

However, violent crime is more a male thing than a female thing. Females commit violent crime, but not in the numbers males do. That's one reason I think the female brain is better adapted to contemporary life. They cause less direct mayhem and tend to work toward consensus.

 

I'm sorry Rosie if I hurt anyone's feelings. Please let me know so I can correct myself. I don't want anyone thinking that I mean something hurtful. So if I've said anything to offend, I beg forgiveness.

No, no, you're fine! I'm just trying to look out for others, mainly. I was offended by a few things on this thread, but definitely nothing said by you.

[pakicetus 312]

 

 

  On 2015-04-04 at 12:48 AM, Phanpy said:

Surveys show than men have a higher percentage of employment and enrollment than most women.

 

Nope.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-04 at 12:48 AM, Phanpy said:

Additionally, men have been given most of the spotlight in history.

 

Most of history has been played out by men. Why that is, I'll leave up to others to decide.

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:50 AM, pakicetus said:

Nope.

 

 

 

Most of history has been played out by men. Why that is, I'll leave up to others to decide.

It's certainly not because we're superior.

 

As for emotions, women have very good heads on their shoulders. They don't take as many unnecessary risks and tend to consider the effect they'll have on others. That's why insurance companies have lower rates for women. They're better drivers and get into fewer accidents.

[pakicetus 312]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 8:03 AM, Aidan OGain said:

It's certainly not because we're superior.

 

Nah. Arguments of "inferiority/superiority" tend to be pretty stupid.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 8:03 AM, Aidan OGain said:

As for emotions, women have very good heads on their shoulders. They don't take as many unnecessary risks and tend to consider the effect they'll have on others.

 

I'd attribute this to lower average female aggression (comparative lack of testosterone and all).

[Aidan OGain 112]

I forgot about race. True, there are things like tolerance for lactose that develop over the milenia, but we can still interbreed and create fertile offspring. There has been too much blending to say definitively where a race ends and another starts even if skin pigmentation eye shape and hair color aren't the only defining differences. There is just one human species that has remnant DNA from earlier hominids and a great deal of diversity. As our world becomes smaller thanks to technology, the boundaries between races will become even more blurred. That's why I don't really think race is a thing.

[HaroldGenhi 82]

My lengthy two-cents. Tossed it in a spoiler tag to save forum space and not overcrowd the 'floor' so to speak.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

In next to all modern societies, men and women are paid about equal and the gender pay gap is a myth. You will be hard pressed to find men and women of equal ability and hours being paid differently with only a few companies left having a pay gap of around $0.95/$1.00. In fact, if we compare unmarried, single, childless women and men of a certain age group the women will be paid 8% more than men for the same work. This dynamic shifts when we remove the aforementioned qualifiers. Why? Women will begin working less than men as they tend to be the care providers for the children. Not all women do this, but it is there. At the same time instance we have to look at the demographics of who is working where. Women tend to take jobs that don't have an overtime bonus to it, like teachers and other social worker groups, while men are in jobs that do have an overtime pay system active. This is one of the factors that generated the whole $0.77/$1.00 statistic that is floating around.

 

What you will see is a vast majority of air being used to demand better entrance and ability for women to get into business careers where there is a vast majority of men controlling it. What you don't see is the same push for other, less desirable positions such as garbage truck drivers, septic tank cleaners, coal miners, and other professions where there is a high chance where you can die on the job. We see no feminists advocating for these jobs to be inclusive. We only see the more padded positions getting hit with the flak. Then again, this could be from the radical side entirely and a 'true' feminist advocates that women should also work in these more dangerous jobs.

 

And male privilege? You have seen the suicide statistics right? Men are far more likely(3-4x up to 10x as likely) to kill themselves than women, yet we see that women have a vast majority of the help centers devoted to them. If men are so privileged then why are they killing themselves so much more. Do you know how many grants, scholarships, and assistance that are exclusive to straight white men? None, yet we see plenty for minorities and for women. You get married and have kids. Your wife loses it and becomes crazy for some reason (the dangerous kind of crazy) and you get a divorce. If you didn't get that prenup, you will probably be out of half of your belongings and guess what? She will get the kids and you will have to pay child support. It doesn't matter how great of a father you are compared to her, a mother is far more likely to get the kids than the father. How's that privilege feeling?

 

If a woman gets raped it becomes news worthy, plastered over Rolling Stone Magazine as the fraternity is demonized, egged, and eventually 'destroyed' (greek system fraternities are banned) by the school, yet they were innocent. Reports of men getting raped by women are met with laughter and no a slice of seriousness. Heck, sometimes the men are raped and the man will be passed as the rapist. A woman can be promiscuous and regret it later and make false rape accusations. Sometimes she is caught out and is sent to prison, other times, innocent men will be sent to prison and will be labelled as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, in effect having their lives ruined. How many stories do you see of women being tossed in jail from men giving false rape testimonies? I'm glad the straight white males are shielded by their privilege.

 

Women and minorities have so completely overwhelmed and taken over the general demographics of colleges that now white men are considered the minorities and are getting affirmative action treatment. Can you guess who has a problem with that and is pointing to it being a clear sign of male privilege?

 

What I see is that the crosshairs of feminism are completely on the wrong target. The modern world has succeeded at probably the best gender equality that doesn't wreck the system (looking at you Sweden) completely. If the main concerns are how far apart a man's legs are on a bus or subway is then the demands for equality in such an environment are truly vapid. The focus should be on the areas of the world where basic equality doesn't exist for women. But be warned, such interference can easily be construed as you pressuring your culture upon theirs which is a big no-no in many SJW circles.

 

Simply put, the process of social evolution is far more complex than anyone will admit. They think a bit of pressure and some laws will make everything better instantly of which is idyllic to the core. What humanity needs is time to let it just progress as it has been progressing. Sadly, we live in a world of wanting things now. We live in a world where everyone believes they are entitled to something. You are entitled to your opinions and as the price for it you must face your critics. The world doesn't owe anyone anything and the faster we acknowledge and accept that reality the better.

 

[pakicetus 312]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 8:52 AM, Aidan OGain said:

True, there are things like tolerance for lactose that develop over the milenia, but we can still interbreed and create fertile offspring.

 

So can wolves and dogs.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 8:52 AM, Aidan OGain said:

There has been too much blending to say definitively where a race ends and another starts

 

The fact that there are intermediates between red and blue does not mean they do not exist.

 

Also, no, there has not been "too much blending" for many people. For one, we can actually trace someone's genetic ancestry (services such as 23andme offer this). Secondly, a lot of people are heavily homogenous (for example, many white Americans do not have traceable non-white ancestry).

 

So, yeah. Race is pretty much a thing (I also left another link that gave some other reasons, not sure if you checked that out.

[A Black Circle 1,586]

I don't think things like playing with action figures is an inherent trait of men. I think it sort of came to be from guys fighting in wars, and that passing on to their children, in concept at least.

 

As for women, the whole dolls thing is a similar concept.

 

But things like instability for men are very much genetic.

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-15 at 3:19 PM, Sheo G. Orath said:

I don't think things like playing with action figures is an inherent trait of men. I think it sort of came to be from guys fighting in wars, and that passing on to their children, in concept at least.

 

As for women, the whole dolls thing is a similar concept.

 

But things like instability for men are very much genetic.

They are genetic. The Y chromosome doesn't carry as much information as the X. With less information there are less ways to correct for errors in the code. That's why men are more susceptible to genetic disorders.

 

The toy preferences are based off of the structure of our brains. Even if you never model the girl behavior or even actively suppress it, girls will still be girls deep down. You can't teach it out of them. But that's not saying all girls are the same. There's a lot of diversity in brain structures. Our species diversifies and experiments a lot in its biology.

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:04 AM, pakicetus said:

So can wolves and dogs.

 

 

 

The fact that there are intermediates between red and blue does not mean they do not exist.

 

Also, no, there has not been "too much blending" for many people. For one, we can actually trace someone's genetic ancestry (services such as 23andme offer this). Secondly, a lot of people are heavily homogenous (for example, many white Americans do not have traceable non-white ancestry).

 

So, yeah. Race is pretty much a thing (I also left another link that gave some other reasons, not sure if you checked that out.

Red and blue exist on a color continuum. It's useful for our eyes to distinguish them, but there is no absolute boundary where one stops and the other begins. We can subdivide the colors ad-infinitum. What we call red and blue is more based off of the structure of our trichromatic color vision and the way our brains process information than on any scientific reality.

 

I grant that geographical boundaries create eventual speciation. If we sent a colony to Mars and we never went back and it lived for 100,000 generations, we might be two distinct species that could not interbreed. Dogs are still wolves by species. That's why they can interbreed. Wolf: Canis Lupus. Dog: Canis Lupus Familiaris.

 

Had humanity not built sailing ships and airplanes, we might have speciated. But technology has eliminated those boundaries, which were permeable still in the ancient past. We even have Neanderthal and Davidovan DNA. We're all very mixed up. Nowhere more so than in the Americas today. I'm a conglomeration of just about every European imaginable. And I'm married to an American from China, who likely has Mongol, Turkic, and Jurchen ancestors in addition to Chinese. Most Russians have some Mongol blood. They're not Asian, and not quite European. Trying to sort out any pure race is going to be nightmarishly difficult. So it's easier to say there's only one race of human regardless of diversity. There is only one photon regardless of wavelength or amplitude.

 

What practical purpose does identifying race provide?

[Silver Letter 1,832]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:27 AM, pakicetus said:

I don't see why you think these trends would have to be universal.

Because then you can't point at a male or female and say "they have these defined characteristics on account of their cellular structure which is guaranteed never to deviate."

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:38 AM, Aidan OGain said:

It's what drives little boys to like trucks and action figures and little girls to like dolls and tea sets. There will always be exceptions, but the toy industry is well adapted to take advantage of those strong trends.

It's surely impossible to have a perfectly neutral experiment where the children are utterly unfazed by any outside influence from other children or parents in regards to consumption of specific types of toys.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 7:38 AM, Aidan OGain said:

Females commit violent crime, but not in the numbers males do.

But they can commit crime and there are many women that have. Females have proven themselves as just as powerful as males on a battlefield and just as dangerous as killers and tyrants.

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 8:03 AM, Aidan OGain said:

That's why insurance companies have lower rates for women.

That should definitely be illegal.

[Aidan OGain 112]

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:08 PM, Silver Letter said:

Because then you can't point at a male or female and say "they have these defined characteristics on account of their cellular structure which is guaranteed never to deviate."

 

 

It's surely impossible to have a perfectly neutral experiment where the children are utterly unfazed by any outside influence from other children or parents in regards to consumption of specific types of toys.

 

 

But they can commit crime and there are many women that have. Females have proven themselves as just as powerful as males on a battlefield and just as dangerous as killers and tyrants.

 

That should definitely be illegal.

The experiments are possible thanks to brain mapping, MRI and PET scans. There are physical differences, but still variation. People never conform 100%.

 

Look at the percentages of men and women in prison. Either women aren't as criminal minded, or they're a lot better at getting away with it. Not saying no women vomit crimes. But as a statistic, less do.

 

Technology is a great equalizer on the battlefield. So if women want to fight, we should let them. The draft is not anyone's idea of a good time. But if the people who want to fight do, there's less of a need for a draft.

[Silver Letter 1,832]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:09 PM, Aidan OGain said:

People never conform 100%.

So any statements which imply it are false and does nothing but breed hostility, resentment and stereotypes.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:09 PM, Aidan OGain said:

Technology is a great equalizer on the battlefield. So if women want to fight, we should let them.

And in some ways, women have proven to even outperform some men. Women can be great soldiers.

[pakicetus 312]

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:08 PM, Silver Letter said:

Because then you can't point at a male or female and say "they have these defined characteristics on account of their cellular structure which is guaranteed never to deviate."

 

Nobody said they were "guaranteed to never deviate". I don't even know where you got this idea.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:08 PM, Silver Letter said:

It's surely impossible to have a perfectly neutral experiment where the children are utterly unfazed by any outside influence from other children or parents in regards to consumption of specific types of toys.

 

Factors, if they cannot be removed, can be accounted for. I also linked to a study showing the same behavior in chimpanzees.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 6:08 PM, Silver Letter said:

But they can commit crime and there are many women that have.

 

Nobody is contesting that.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:33 PM, Silver Letter said:

So any statements which imply it are false and does nothing but breed hostility, resentment and stereotypes.

 

It's a good thing nobody is saying this goes for everyone then.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:33 PM, Silver Letter said:

And in some ways, women have proven to even outperform some men. Women can be great soldiers.

 

Oh, is that why the FDNY had to lower standards so that it could get more women to join?

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 5:07 PM, Aidan OGain said:

They're not Asian, and not quite European.

 

They're overwhelmingly European, and as such can be (and are) lumped into them. It's not like most Europeans are pure anyhow.

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 5:07 PM, Aidan OGain said:

What practical purpose does identifying race provide?

 

Taxonomic, anthropological, genetic, etc. 

 

Races don't have to be pure for them to exist. The existence of alloys does not mean metals do not exist.

Edited April 15, 2015 by pakicetus

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,016]

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

Oh, is that why the FDNY had to lower standards so that it could get more women to join?

This is why I'm for fairness but not equality. I heard of other cases where certain organizations would accept something like 25% Caucasians, 25% Asians, 25% Middle Easterns, 25% Africans to work for them (not specific numbers or groups but you get idea). If it happens to be that the Caucasians are usually the most qualified to be part of organization, it's not discrimination because they objectively are able to work better for the organization. You could argue that having artificially lower standard is insult towards the other groups because they may feel that being accepted with lower standards means that they're not able to reach same standards as what would normally be the objectively dominant group.

 

Okay so I guess I'm for equality in terms of opportunity, but not in sense where artificially lower standards are made for other groups because that reduces productivity. Don't make it more difficult for certain groups to achieve something, but don't make it artificially easier either.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Tsaritsa Luna

[Silver Letter 1,832]

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

Nobody said they were "guaranteed to never deviate". I don't even know where you got this idea.

I don't know but that's what I think when people say Males = *insert standard*. It's like saying "B=3". When it should be

"B= {3,4,5,14,230,5000..... } That's when people should understand that there is no universal standard and that individuals can be anything they want to be.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

Factors, if they cannot be removed, can be accounted for.

Are those factors solely responsible for the behavior?

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

It's a good thing nobody is saying this goes for everyone then.

Well, that's how people react anyway.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

Oh, is that why the FDNY had to lower standards so that it could get more women to join?

I am not sure why but women are not inferior to men in any way.

 

 

 

  On 2015-04-15 at 9:49 PM, pakicetus said:

They're overwhelmingly European, and as such can be lumped into them.

Well, I thought Russians were considered a unique group. Not Europeans.