Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

The Mascara Snake

My two cents on the subject. There are only two genders. Genders are binary by definition of the DNA makeup of the individual. XX or XY chromosomes.

I hate to be the guy to simply quote dictionary definitions, but that's really all that can be done here because you clearly have a misunderstanding of what the words gender and sex mean.

 

Gender: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."

 

Sex: "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

That's a very recent definition, one that doesn't even exist in many languages (gender simply denotes grammatical gender) and a lot of people would contest it. I think that regardless to which arguments you subscribe, the discussion about the definition of the word is literally one about semantics. Well, mostly. Science isn't exactly on the side of the trans activists. The concept of gender roles is a valid one and most of those are, roughly speaking, social constructs (though they are clearly the result of certain hard biological facts). I suppose that gender expression is also an acceptable concept but perhaps a bit of a superfluous one. However, the concept of gender itself cannot simply be just a social construct. There are things attached to it that are social constructs, sure, but there are also things that are the result of behavioral traits and other kinds of traits specific to each sex. You can't really argue that sex and gender aren't intertwined to some extent. Unless you are a science denier.

 

I think it's far more coherent and logical to say that a trans woman is expressing herself as a woman but isn't actually identical to one behaviorally. Some of them come quite close but I think we should keep distinguishing between people in terms of biology when it matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I think it's far more coherent and logical to say that a trans woman is expressing herself as a woman but isn't actually identical to one behaviorally. Some of them come quite close but I think we should keep distinguishing between people in terms of biology when it matters.

Decent people respect trans women as women, but there's a fundamental difference between a biological male and a biological female. A difference that no transition or known procedure can change.

 

You can't really argue that sex and gender aren't intertwined to some extent. Unless you are a science denier.

Feminists do have a tendency to be anti naturalist and to pretend science is racist or sexist whenever it suits them. When it suits their agenda, as in the case of climate science, they suddenly pretend to be pro science. They're inconsistent charlatans really. Their views are based on a preconceived sense of social desirability, which they use to propagate a regressive morality. When facts do not suit them, then facts become racist and sexist.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

But as it's been pointed out countless times, the science doesn't agree with your complementarianism.

 

At this point I would just suggest you make some female friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

At this point I would just suggest you make some female friends.

You have nothing meaningful to add so you insist on ad hominem to attack me. Pretty cowardly and pathetic really. You don't know anything about me.

 

Anyone criticizing feminism must hate women right? Or not have them as friends. Because really all women are feminists. And criticism of feminism is the exact equal of woman hating.

 

You're really a completely dogmatic idiot.

 

But as it's been pointed out countless times, the science doesn't agree with your complementarianism.

That is moving the goalposts and a strawman.

 

You're really terrible at defending your views.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

But as it's been pointed out countless times, the science doesn't agree with your complementarianism.

 

At this point I would just suggest you make some female friends.

But being critical of the trans movement doesn't really amount to that. I'm not a supporter of enforcing gender roles or traditions but I still find a lot the things that feminists and trans activists say incoherent.

 

Are you assuming that his female acquaintances are all (trans) allies? Most of my female friends would laugh in my face if I told them that I could be a woman just by identifying as one. They would think that I am making a mockery of women. Perhaps that speaks to the level of education here but fundamentally they aren't wrong either. I do think that there's more to being a woman than just identifying or behaving as one and most people would agree.

Edited by Dealux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

At this point I would just suggest you make some female friends.

You have nothing meaningful to add so you insist on ad hominem to attack me. Pretty cowardly and pathetic really.

You just said that all feminists are charlatans.

 

 

 

Anyone criticizing feminism must hate women right? Or not have them as friends. Because really all women are feminists. And criticism of feminism is the exact equal of woman hating.

Actually, my point was that it is so obvious amongst our generation that men and women are more or less the same that in order to hold to your complementarianism you would have to just not interact with women. If a woman said this I'd assume she doesn't know any men.

 

But while we're on it, yeah if you oppose 'feminism' you probably hate women, since feminism has become a laughably broad term that applies to all of women's activism, slacktivism and complaining on the internet alike.

 

 

 

You're really a completely dogmatic idiot.

Eh, not really, I'm pretty flexible. You are just flat wrong every time you speak on these issues.

 

 

That is moving the goalposts and a strawman.

Not really. You keep harping on about The Science as if neuroscientists have all come and said "we've just debunked feminism!" which hasn't happened and will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

You just said that all feminists are charlatans.

The anti-naturalist 'science is sexist when it suits my preconceived bias' ones are charlatans.

 

my point was that it is so obvious amongst our generation that men and women are more or less the same

lol

 

your complementarianism

You are failing to make an is/ought distinction. The truism that men and women are different in a myriad of ways does not imply they ought to be different. I've never argued they ought to be different. I've argued they are different, because it is evidently the case to almost anyone, except to a range of ideologically driven leftist sillies. In your socially desirable universe everyone is born the same, but in reality that isn't really the case, and people differ by nature in a large number of ways, concerning intelligence, interests and personality.

 

neuroscientists have all come and said "we've just debunked feminism!"

Because they are scientists, and not driven to debunk ideology. Neuroscientists have in fact discovered brain differences between men and women. So if they would want to debunk the false idea that men and women have identical brains, they could.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

You just said that all feminists are charlatans.

The anti-naturalist 'science is sexist when it suits my preconceived bias' ones are charlatans.

The science isn't sexist, the people who misinterpret the science are.

 

 

 

lol

It's quite obviously true though. Women and men have changed a lot in my lifetime, right before my eyes. It takes a serious dose of ideology not to see it.

 

 

 

You are failing to make an is/ought distinction.

No, you are factually wrong. 'Ought' has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

I've argued they are different, because it is evidently the case to almost anyone, except to a range of ideologically driven leftist sillies.

Yeah it's obvious to everyone except the scientists who perform the studies, who go to lengths to make it clear that they haven't explained away social divisions between men and women.

 

 

 

In your socially desirable universe everyone is born the same, but in reality that isn't really the case, and people differ by nature in a large number of ways, concerning intelligence, interests and personality.

I have never argued in favour of tabula rasa, so it's you who's dealing in straw men. In fact it's central to my point that social differences run counter to hormonal differences: if someone takes a bunch of testosterone, do they become more stoic? No, they become more emotional, something associated with femininity.

 

 

 

Because they are scientists, and not driven to debunk ideology. Neuroscientists have in fact discovered brain differences between men and women. So if they would want to debunk the false idea that men and women have identical brains, they could.

Men and women don't have identical brain structure, but they can. Depending on the study the overlap between 'male and female brains' can be as low as 7% or as high as 40%. Also you have never addressed the issue of cerebral elasticity or the fact that trans people behave like other members of their sex despite having both the hormones and brain structure of the opposite sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It's quite obviously true though. Women and men have changed a lot in my lifetime, right before my eyes. It takes a serious dose of ideology not to see it.

Obviously masculinity and femininity manifest themselves culturally, and are thus susceptible to cultural change. I don't think anyone has ever denied that.

 

No, you are factually wrong. 'Ought' has nothing to do with it.

It does. You confuse the assertion that men and women are different by nature, and thus manifest themselves differently in society, as the idea that they ought to manifest themselves differently. I'm not arguing that they ought to be different in a traditional manner. I'm arguing against the current development where the worth of a woman is determined according to how well she competes with men. I'm arguing against telling women that they should behave like men to lift themselves from oppression (by men). Making men the norm doesn't lift women from oppression.

 

Firstly, it's dubious women are disadvantaged compared to males in modern Western countries. Secondly, it's oppressive and judgmental to demand women to compete with men in every possible domain in order to prove their equality. It's fundamentally an idiotic thing to do.

 

Yeah it's obvious to everyone except the scientists who perform the studies, who go to lengths to make it clear that they haven't explained away social divisions between men and women.

See previous argument "everyone ever acknowledges cultural differences and factors". Humans are fundamentally cultural animals, and no scientist will ever find a pre programmed set of behaviors which fully explain societal roles of men and women. Human beings are fundamentally historically situated, adaptable and cultural animals. But we are also animals, with a nature.

 

if someone takes a bunch of testosterone, do they become more stoic? No, they become more emotional, something associated with femininity.

Yeah, well, that's bunk. Testosterone makes you more inclined to be dominant, disagreeable, competitive, and aggressive.

 

the fact that trans people behave like other members of their sex despite having both the hormones and brain structure of the opposite sex.

There's a correlation between pre natal testosterone, play behavior, and also sexual preference. Pre natal testosterone affects gendered behaviour and sexuality, and I think also brain structure.. And I don't know whether you've noticed, but transsexuals take hormones/hormone blockers. So yeah, this is bunk as well.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

I think the feminists people generally complain about are the mainstream voices and their supporters. So far I can say that I have mostly had negative experiences discussing things with feminists on the Internet. Very rarely have I actually dealt with a person that was actually interested in what I had to say. In fact it only happened once I think and she was one of the most humble feminists I have ever heard. Can't say I learned much (or anything at all) by discussing with them and they always treat you with a condescending attitude (the "let me give you a history lesson" speech) whenever you say something critical about something they care about.

 

I remember saying something about the #meetoo campaign, actually several things, and I kept getting accused of various things even though my main points were that a campaign on the internet will likely solve nothing in the end (except bring a few more cases of harassment to the surface) and sexual assault isn't an issue unique to women, so feminists should really stop pretending that feminism represents equality for all genders when virtually any campaign they do focuses on women regardless of what the topic is. Not that I want to be represented by them but then stop pretending that you care about men's issues. Not that you would care since you blame them for everything which is strange because "maleness" is a social construct therefore men can't really be blamed for being men. Gotta love the mental gymnastics you have to do to make sense of all these contradictory beliefs. Needless to say I got accused of victim blaming left and right even though I didn't actually dismiss anyone's experience. I even admitted that women suffer more of such problems but all of that got ignored.

 

Arguing with feminists on the internet is utterly pointless. Then again, arguing with anyone that sees things through their ideology only is also a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

It's quite obviously true though. Women and men have changed a lot in my lifetime, right before my eyes. It takes a serious dose of ideology not to see it.

Obviously masculinity and femininity manifest themselves culturally, and are thus susceptible to cultural change. I don't think anyone has ever denied that.

No my point was that masculinity and femininity are degrading so rapidly that you have to mainline ideology to hold to complementarianism.

 

 

 

You confuse the assertion that men and women are different by nature, and thus manifest themselves differently in society, as the idea that they ought to manifest themselves differently.

Not at all. I think you are factually wrong. I think you have misinterpreted every study you've ever read on the matter, and that you have a warped view of both feminism and human cognition.

 

 

 

Firstly, it's dubious women are disadvantaged compared to males in modern Western countries.

Seriously? Are you still on this? Forget the big things like income and rape and domestic violence, what about them having to shave their legs and put on make-up, and us not having too?

 

 

 

Humans are fundamentally cultural animals, and no scientist will ever find a pre programmed set of behaviors which fully explain societal roles of men and women.

lol then why are you acting like they have? You have claimed repeatedly- including in this discussion- that studies on f*cking brain difference have 'debunked' every feminist grievance! If gender isn't a direct expression of brain differences, why do you keep bringing them up as response to feminism any mention of women's issues?

 

 

 

Yeah, well, that's bunk. Testosterone makes you more inclined to be dominant, disagreeable, competitive, and aggressive.

So? How is that a response to what I said? Testosterone is the desire hormone, it's what makes you do things. It makes you more emotional, hence men are more emotional than women, despite men being socialised to bury any feeling that isn't anger. Those micro traits are all expressions of that.

 

You know sex hormones aren't primarily... well, sex hormones, right? Whenever you talk about testosterone I wonder if you know women have it as well and that it's necessary to function.

 

 

 

There's a correlation between pre natal testosterone, play behavior, and also sexual preference. Pre natal testosterone affects gendered behaviour and sexuality, and I think also brain structure.. And I don't know whether you've noticed, but transsexuals take hormones/hormone blockers. So yeah, this is bunk as well.

Yeah, trans people take hormones, but their personalities don't change in meaningful ways. That was my point. A trans woman takes oestrogen and (statistically) will have a brain structure more like females than other males. Yet still behave like other men. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

No my point was that masculinity and femininity are degrading so rapidly that you have to mainline ideology to hold to complementarianism.

Traditional family roles are degrading rapidly, and simultaneously the birth rate is plummeting at alarming rates. And also simultaneously, many countries have an influx and population growth of migrants with strongly traditional norms. Birth rates of migrants also go down after several generations though. It's probably better for the environment to have less children, but it will cause economic hardships though. It's not clear that it's durable in the long run.

 

Gender differences aren't degrading at all though, and research shows that personality differences are the largest in the most gender egalitarian countries, such as the nordic countries. The gendered division of labour where males do more physical and tool oriented work, and women do people oriented work, isn't changing at all.

 

you have a warped view of both feminism and human cognition.

I support the economic emancipation of women. I'm not a normative traditionalist. But I'm also not a denialist of genuine differences, which seems to be the progressive fad. Gender nihilism is a blind idiocy.

 

If you want to elaborate where my views on cognition are false I'd love to hear so.

 

Seriously? Are you still on this? Forget the big things like income and rape and domestic violence, what about them having to shave their legs and put on make-up, and us not having too?

Men are more often victims of violence than women, and female on male domestic violence is commonly underrated. I think the abuse of women by men, the abuse of men by men, and the abuse of men by women all have a different nature because of the difference in strength and predispositions though, so I don't think we can compare them easily.

 

Beauty norms are oppressive, but a lot more pressure is put on boys and men to be charismatic, successful, and to be able to lead. To what extent different gender norms are oppressive is a complex topic and your judgement will depend on your personal preferences.

 

Sexual intimidation and sexual violence are indeed completely horrifying things women have to deal with specifically. It's the reason why abuse of women is often qualitatively different than that of men, and not easily comparable. Some aspects of #Metoo were problematic, but the discussion of sexual intimidation, and of the sheer scale of it, was meaningful. It honestly made me more aware.

 

lol then why are you acting like they have? You have claimed repeatedly- including in this discussion- that studies on f*cking brain difference have 'debunked' every feminist grievance! If gender isn't a direct expression of brain differences, why do you keep bringing them up as response to feminism any mention of women's issues?

Because the fact that we have a nature in advance of sensory imput, which can be revised to an incredible extent by sensory imput, debunks the blank slate reduction of gender to a social construct. Gender as a social construct is a half truth, and the other half matters very much.

 

So? How is that a response to what I said? Testosterone is the desire hormone, it's what makes you do things. It makes you more emotional, hence men are more emotional than women, despite men being socialised to bury any feeling that isn't anger. Those micro traits are all expressions of that.

You know sex hormones aren't primarily... well, sex hormones, right? Whenever you talk about testosterone I wonder if you know women have it as well and that it's necessary to function.

No, not really, Men are less susceptible to negative emotion post puberty. Men are also more introverted, and less agreeable. Men have less empathy, negative emotion, or extraverted emotional showings.

 

I know women have testosterone. Girls with more pre natal testosterone more often show male typical play behaviour. And there also seems to be a correlation between lesbianism and female pre natal testosterone. That is in studies I've posted many times.

 

Yeah, trans people take hormones, but their personalities don't change in meaningful ways. That was my point. A trans woman takes oestrogen and (statistically) will have a brain structure more like females than other males. Yet still behave like other men. Why?

I know a personal anecdote doesn't count as evidence, but I know someone who transitioned from female to male, and who had a marked personality change, in his own opinion, to some extent (not sure how much) because of testosterone.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Traditional family roles are degrading rapidly, and simultaneously the birth rate is plummeting at alarming rates. And also simultaneously, many countries have an influx and population growth of migrants with strongly traditional norms. Birth rates of migrants also go down after several generations though. It's probably better for the environment to have less children, but it will cause economic hardships though. It's not clear that it's durable in the long run.

 

 

OK.

 

 

 

Gender differences aren't degrading at all though

Err, yes they are. Are you seriously going to tell me that young men and women in 2017 interact in the same way as ten years ago? Dresses are going out of style in my city, women no longer expect me to have a car. Helen Keller over here.

 

 

 

and research shows that personality differences are the largest in the most gender egalitarian countries

Yeah because Western women are so much less assertive than Indian women.

 

tumblr_nr3x4z7oU51qm6lbuo1_540.jpg

 

When you say 'personality differences' you're referring to some very specific sh*t.

 

 

 

such as the nordic countries.

By what measure are these the most equal countries in the world? For perspective the way countries are ranked in terms of gender equality is based on tallying up disparate statistics: teen pregnancies, maternal mortality rate and % of seats in parliament being the biggest contributors to a high score of gender equality. Doesn't have much to do with social life or with gender equality really.

 

 

 

The gendered division of labour where males do more physical and tool oriented work, and women do people oriented work, isn't changing at all.

That's not the gendered division of labour? The gendered division of labour is women doing house work and child rearing, which they are doing less of. As for the actual point, that really depends on the timescale, doesn't it?

 

We've been over this a million times: there are identifiable systematic barriers where either sex is concerned, so even if you were right that a rational society would see more male engineers and more female... everything else, the point is moot. It doesn't constitute a response to feminism, let a lone a 'debunking.'

 

 

 

But I'm also not a denialist of genuine differences, which seems to be the progressive fad. Gender nihilism is a blind idiocy.[...]Gender as a social construct is a half truth, and the other half matters very much.

>Gender nihilism.

 

Those 'genuine differences' are 1) minuscule and 2) really really hard to pin down.

 

 

 

If you want to elaborate where my views on cognition are false I'd love to hear so.

You view social roles as stemming from brain hormones. How does oestrogen make you like dresses and make-up? Even in things where men and women are cognitively different you take such a reductionist view it I can hardly believe it. It's a child's view of the human brain.

 

 

 

Men are more often victims of violence than women

Yeah why don't women just quit struggling for equality and re-purpose their movement to stop men from fist fighting?

 

Men aren't societaly disadvantaged by fist-fights, Women are disadvantaged by having their lives run by abusive men. Female on male domestic violence no matter how common it is doesn't keep men in a subordinate social position. You clearly have very little understanding of domestic violence.

 

 

 

Beauty norms are oppressive, but a lot more pressure is put on boys and men to be charismatic, successful, and to be able to lead. To what extent different gender norms are oppressive is a complex topic and your judgement will depend on your personal preferences.

The expectation that you be charismatic, successful and able to lead is the exact opposite of oppressive lol. You want to discuss feminism until you're blue in the face but think oppression means 'dealing with sh*t' rather than being the subordinate party with an entire system set up to keep you there. Our lives could be worse than women's (they're not) and that wouldn't constitute a response to the fact that women are oppressed by men.

 

Good to know you are now more aware of sexual violence. You might notice that I didn't need every actress in Hollywood coming out and detailing their abuse to work out that this is a solvable social issue.

 

 

 

No, not really, Men are less susceptible to negative emotion post puberty. Men are also more introverted, and less agreeable. Men have less empathy, negative emotion, or extraverted emotional showings.

I didn't say men were more neurotic, I said we were more emotional. The most substantial difference in emotional expression between men and women isn't sadness or anger, but joy and excitement. Why? Because they are smiling all the time as a form of emotional labour, and men act dead-faced because of masculine socialisation. But yeah, we should be more neurotic if biological determinism is true, that's part of it.

 

I know a personal anecdote doesn't count as evidence

You're right it doesn't. It's difficult to distinguish transwomen from other men statistically. I can also spot a transman from a mile away because they don't know how to masculine. They're still women, because they were raised as such.

 

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Gender differences aren't degrading at all though

Err, yes they are. Are you seriously going to tell me that young men and women in 2017 interact in the same way as ten years ago? Dresses are going out of style in my city, women no longer expect me to have a car. Helen Keller over here.

Lol, dresses aren't going out of style. Don't you think this 'ideal world' where women and men act identically is an aesthetically incredibly unpleasing world? It's a world where romance is dead and uniformity rules. For the rest, you're talking past my point really. The fact that we have started accepting behaviours traditionally associated with men from women, doesn't mean men and women have become more alike. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the research seems to indicate that in more developed countries we have become more different.

 

By what measure are these the most equal countries in the world? For perspective the way countries are ranked in terms of gender equality is based on tallying up disparate statistics: teen pregnancies, maternal mortality rate and % of seats in parliament being the biggest contributors to a high score of gender equality. Doesn't have much to do with social life or with gender equality really.

"health, education, economics and politics" https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-world-s-most-gender-equal-countries/

 

That's not the gendered division of labour? The gendered division of labour is women doing house work and child rearing, which they are doing less of. As for the actual point, that really depends on the timescale, doesn't it?

"where males do more physical and tool oriented work, and women do people oriented work" is the one that seems to follow, to some extent at least, from the innate differences. House work has been diminished incredibly due to technological change.

 

there are identifiable systematic barriers where either sex is concerned,

There aren't though. Women have the exact same right towards self actualization, in whatever way they please, as men do, in the Western world. I think there are socialized barriers based on social dynamics that strengthen the dynamic resulting from generalized innate differences. So, I think it is harder for a woman or a minority to be taken seriously in a number of fields to the extent that (white) men are. But there is no unsurpassable barrier in that respect that can't be broken by determination, hard work, talent and resulting competence. You're completely free to convince anyone of your competence, and our society functions because it rewards competence.

 

Those 'genuine differences' are 1) minuscule and 2) really really hard to pin down.

Miniscule is a relative term. How small does miniscule mean? And, no, don't react to this with a penis joke. They are big enough to contribute to significant differences in outcome, in my opinion at least. Hard to pin down? Yes. People are hard to define and pin down. People are the most complex phenomenon we know of. We have some measures to pin down differences though.

 

You view social roles as stemming from brain hormones. How does oestrogen make you like dresses and make-up? Even in things where men and women are cognitively different you take such a reductionist view it I can hardly believe it. It's a child's view of the human brain.

I've never said any of that. In fact, I've explicitly pointed out that phenomena extremely close to the surface, as you mention, can't be explained by innate differences, but that the underlying dynamic can. The closer to concrete behaviour you get, the more arbitrary the way it manifests itself. But the underlying dynamic is not arbitrary at all, and in many ways shared with many other animals. Sex difference denialism is scientific denialism.

 

Men aren't societaly disadvantaged by fist-fights

How can you argue for this and at the same time argue crime is a social construct resulting from oppressive institutions? You're completely inconsistent. If you want to maintain your anarchism you'll have to agree criminal justice oppresses men.

 

Yeah why don't women just quit struggling for equality and re-purpose their movement to stop men from fist fighting?

Why don't you actually aim your witticisms at the full context of what I said in stead of something drawn so far out of its context it loses its intended meaning?

 

You clearly have very little understanding of domestic violence.

And you are a silly smug little jerk who can't argue but just insults others ad hominem?

 

The expectation that you be charismatic, successful and able to lead is the exact opposite of oppressive lol.

High expectations are oppressive. Why is it oppressive we expect women to be beautiful? That's the logic in your argument. It is.

 

Our lives could be worse than women's (they're not) and that wouldn't constitute a response to the fact that women are oppressed by men

Women are happier than men in the statistics from Western countries that I have seen.

 

You might notice that I didn't need every actress in Hollywood coming out and detailing their abuse to work out that this is a solvable social issue.

How amazing of you.

 

I didn't say men were more neurotic, I said we were more emotional.

Yes, and it's false.

 

It's difficult to distinguish transwomen from other men statistically.

???

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmyRaidFail404

 

Men aren't societaly disadvantaged by fist-fights, Women are disadvantaged by having their lives run by abusive men. Female on male domestic violence no matter how common it is doesn't keep men in a subordinate social position. You clearly have very little understanding of domestic violence.

 

The expectation that you be charismatic, successful and able to lead is the exact opposite of oppressive lol. You want to discuss feminism until you're blue in the face but think oppression means 'dealing with sh*t' rather than being the subordinate party with an entire system set up to keep you there. Our lives could be worse than women's (they're not) and that wouldn't constitute a response to the fact that women are oppressed by men.

 

Yo can I have some that I D E O L O G Y. It seems that you have a very narrow perspective on what oppression really is.

 

The mere fact that you don't identify oppression with the societal issues that men face ALONGSIDE with women's societal issues show just how much you paint on one side of the canvas. To speculate if men's lives were worse than women's and conclude that the woman would still be the more oppressed because of our current societal system is nearly akin to saying that the millionaire is more oppressed than the homeless man simply because the millionaire has a higher tax rate.

 

And of course being expected to be "charismatic, successful, and able to lead" is oppressive. Most men aren't capable of that, and it leads to severe mental issues such as depression and substance abuse. Of course, this stems from the spook that is societal gender roles which also tell us that women should be submissive, nurturing etc.; which of course lead to the same types of depression and substance abuse that men face. It's all part of the same wheel.

 

Also you say that womens lives are being run by abusive men as if it were some absolute truth. I'm not sure if you mean that but it comes across as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

 

 

I want to kill myself. So where are the reasonable feminists denouncing morons like this dipsh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I can never get over the brain bleeding idiocy of people selecting random and entirely obscure examples of things expressly because they believe they furnish a view they hold, and then expressing feigned exasperation that a broad categorisation of society haven't come out of the woodwork to publicly denounce it.

 

It's frankly f*cking moronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

The issue of gender is one which exemplifies the flaws of the human species. We hold to our tribalism even as the cost of our cohesion and efficiency as a collective.

Culturally, I believe humanity should look to bees and ants as inspiration. They are harmonious, unified in a common purpose. Technology allows us to create such a hive mind, and yet these messy human divisions persist.

As long as one gender is favoured over another, the pursuit of equality has worth. However, the ultimate aim should be the abolition of gender itself, in favour of a larger conception of ourselves as a single species working in symbiosis with the world.

 

That's the issue here. That the male narrative, and elements of the female narrative, are deeply narcissistic, indwelling the genders with qualities and merits which simply do not exist. This parochialism is arrogant, it is proof of the hubris of our whole species, and a continuing source of discord among us. We will have no true peace until it is accepted that we are a finite animal living on a finite world. The issues of gender and sexuality are important only insofar as they stop us from acknowledging this greater truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonaut

 

Men aren't societaly disadvantaged by fist-fights, Women are disadvantaged by having their lives run by abusive men. Female on male domestic violence no matter how common it is doesn't keep men in a subordinate social position. You clearly have very little understanding of domestic violence.

 

The expectation that you be charismatic, successful and able to lead is the exact opposite of oppressive lol. You want to discuss feminism until you're blue in the face but think oppression means 'dealing with sh*t' rather than being the subordinate party with an entire system set up to keep you there. Our lives could be worse than women's (they're not) and that wouldn't constitute a response to the fact that women are oppressed by men.

Yo can I have some that I D E O L O G Y. It seems that you have a very narrow perspective on what oppression really is.

 

 

Whilst I'm not Melchior, the flaw here is claiming his view is 'narrow' based on what he omits in an exchange targeted on one area of oppression. It's understandable that some hanging implication is left by the quote along the lines of what you've said, but it's difficult to go beyond this to the extent you have.

 

 

which of course lead to the same types of depression and substance abuse that men face. It's all part of the same wheel.

 

Also you say that womens lives are being run by abusive men as if it were some absolute truth. I'm not sure if you mean that but it comes across as such.

 

Whatever outcomes are similar between men / women does not change the fundamental difference in how they were reached, which you explain for yourself. Understanding such casual differences is key to responding to them appropriately so that we're not just around to pick up the pieces.

 

Of course, hyper-masculinity is a stupid and potentially oppressive expectation for men, but whatever oppression it has is pretty impossible to compare to that of women which is notably different in the ways Melch explains. Highlighting this doesn't undervalue the issues with hyper masculinity, and having separate conversations for both would probably be all that is needed to avoid creating this 'awkwardness'.

 

It's odd to take Melch to task on narrowness but come up with it when talking on an even broader scale on how we should understand oppression in general.

Edited by Argonaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

I can never get over the brain bleeding idiocy of people selecting random and entirely obscure examples of things expressly because they believe they furnish a view they hold, and then expressing feigned exasperation that a broad categorisation of society haven't come out of the woodwork to publicly denounce it.

 

It's frankly f*cking moronic.

The problem is worse than that. If I recall correctly, you seem to think that feminism is generally represented by feminists in academia but to my mind that doesn't make any sense. I don't think the feminist movement at large is composed of academics to a large extent and how many of these women in academia even voice their opinions publicly? The feminists that people typically complain about are everywhere though. It's not just the leftist trolls that you see from time to time on TV that are looking to incite controversy. There are also such leftists trolls that write for major journalistic publications (BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, etc, to name a few and a lot of their editors are racist man hating bigots). They also have plenty of followers that you see in comment threads everywhere espousing the same extremist ideas. It would be hard to pretend that these people are a minority at this point unless you're not paying enough attention.

 

The denouncing thing is also worse than you think. It's not that I expect every reasonable feminist to pay attention to and denounce every stupid thing these idiots say. It's that even when they are asked about more extreme views, a lot of these mainstream feminists are very reluctant to criticize their own.

 

 

Edit: Even the BBC gives a platform to these idiots from time to time:

 

 

 

Edited by Dealux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If I recall correctly, you seem to think that feminism is generally represented by feminists in academia

You don't recall correctly.

 

The feminists that people typically complain about are everywhere though.

Are they? Literally the only exposure I have ever had to them is when people like you post YouTube videos on them on this forum. Personally, I think this is a manifestation of your cognitive bias, likely reinforced by the fact you consciously, intentionally expose yourself to these views vastly more frequently than any rational, normal adult not borderline obsessed with the narrative would.

 

It would be hard to pretend that these people are a minority

...perhaps to someone who intentionally exposes himself constantly to this rather than more moderate views. But if you want to assert this is fact, you'd better have some statistics to support it rather than your own hilariously warped perception.

 

It's not that I expect every reasonable feminist to pay attention to and denounce every stupid thing these idiots say.

That's literally what you were complaining about them not doing. Frankly, pretending otherwise is blatant bullsh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

You're right. I overreacted and it's hard to assess the magnitude of this problem but I'm not sure what statistics would help here. Obviously most people aren't feminists but anecdotally the views of those that I've debated have been similar to those that appear in those videos. Even though I largely agree with the main points of feminism (maybe not so much the theory but most of the end goals) I seem to mostly disagree with them wherever I bump into them online (FB, YT, etc comment threads). Not sure how else I could expose myself to their views.

 

But you're kinda glossing over the fact that plenty of major publications give a platform to feminists with more extreme views. How do you explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Because sexism and racism have increasingly become the main topic for mainstream opinion and moral outrage, quite crazy feminists are abundantly present in the media, and those willing and brave enough to stand up to them are an extreme rarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But you're kinda glossing over the fact that plenty of major publications give a platform to feminists with more extreme views. How do you explain that?

Sorry, what am I supposed to be explaining? That certain media organisations occasionally give airtime to individuals or groups radical or extreme views?

This isn't something isolated to Feminism, and from where I'm standing the onus is on you to prove that such airtime is either disproportionate or disproportionately favourable.

Frankly, I see this as another manifestation of cognitive bias. You find it especially noticeable because of your views on the subject, and because you find it noticeable you overestimate both its frequency and prominence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

The asymmetry is in the way they are presented. The "digital blackface" clip from BBC is presented objectively but you don't often see that with more extreme right leaning views now, do you? When was the last time someone (TV channel, major news outlet, etc) presented a more extreme right wing perspective on TV with no rebuttal? The thing is, telling people that black memes and emojis are racist or MTV espousing their hate for white men are ideas deemed acceptable as they are, without needing any additional explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

you don't often see that with more extreme right leaning views now, do you?

Is this a question or a statement? If it's a question, centre-right political views are dominant in most mainstream Western media. It's difficult to give extreme-right views non critical airtime because they're facile, delusional bullsh*t, though various media outlets frequently try with varying degrees of hilarity.

 

When was the last time someone (TV channel, major news outlet, etc) presented a more extreme right wing perspective on TV with no rebuttal?

It's very rare for any media outlet, especially those subject to specific regulation on the balancing of perspective and the avoidance of bias, to not present contrary points of view from other commentators as part of the same piece. I don't know why you want to insinuate otherwise because I sure as f*ck haven't.

 

telling people that black memes and emojis are racist or MTV espousing their hate for white men

The f*ck are you on about? This is starting to border on the delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonaut

The "digital blackface" clip from BBC is presented objectively

 

It was presented as an open question on a Facebook page, where extreme right leaning views could be posted and supported as a top comment with probably no requirement to balance perspectives from the BBC...?

 

And how about this for a prime example of the BBC presenting a more extreme right wing perspective on TV with no rebuttal?

 

BBC wrong to not challenge climate sceptic Lord Lawson

 

If we (justifiably) want to broaden our scope to interviews the BBC has done with completely inadequate rebuttal, then

with Raheem Kassam over Trump's tweets is an obvious and recent contender- large amounts of BS left unchallenged, fair amount of speaking time given with no interruption. The Youtuber's titling of the video gives it away really. Edited by Argonaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Problem is I presented examples of people that are either racist or bordering on being racist or bigots (

is the clip that MTV had to take down) and you gave me a climate change denier and someone defending Trump. Not sure how you can draw an equivalence there. Even if the mentioned clips weren't actually aired on TV, they were posted online by the same media outlets, presented with no context. That kinda reflects badly on your company if you fail to spot the obvious hate behind the messages.

 

Give me examples of a white person telling black people how to behave in a condescending manner and I'll shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonaut

Problem is I presented examples of people that are either racist or bordering on being racist or bigots (

is the clip that MTV had to take down) and you gave me a climate change denier and someone defending Trump. Not sure how you can draw an equivalence there.

 

Surprise surprise, you can't draw an equivalence between a national broadcaster with (regardless of how this is specifically reached) an obligation to balance perspectives and a privately owned entertainment channel which produces content it thinks it's target audience will like. This is why it's not even worth entertaining such an asinine thought which just displays your ridiculous cognitive bias in equating "(TV channel, major news outlet, etc)", and deciding to tackle the line of

 

The "digital blackface" clip from BBC is presented objectively but you don't often see that with more extreme right leaning views now, do you?

 

Of which I can find many more examples of, for the BBC being too timid in it's impartiality is a reasonably common criticism as of late since the EU Referendum. In relation to the topic, hosting groups like "transgender trend" which for all their claims of not being wingnutty, still claim the existence of a trans narrative that has "become regarded as fact and interpreted as universal truth", which is not backed up by the scientific rigor which they claim to champion as reason for their skepticism. Also see "listening doesn’t mean always ‘agreeing’ with a child" which implies the same old revolving hospital door nonsense / hands off treatment seen in previous fights against gay rights and the like.

 

Not that I think this is a worthwhile use of my time when you come out with nonsense such as

 

 

Give me examples of a white person telling black people how to behave in a condescending manner and I'll shut up.

 

which is glaringly ignorant of the difference between MTV / BBC to the point where I can't think of anything else to say.

 

 

Don't even start on "you [just] gave me a climate change denier and someone defending Trump" or the whole cry-me-a-river "kinda reflects badly on your company" rubbish- opinions of the clip aren't remotely relevant to this discussion.

Edited by Argonaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.