WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Despite their best attempt, no Sweden (or other Scandinavian country) haven't completly erased traditionnal gender roles (they are getting there fast I will admit with joy). They are the closest to achieve it. You will also notice that Sweden and its neighbors have the following caracteristics. Their wage (or earning) gap between men and women is twice smaller. Men and women spent an almost equal time to the care of their children. They have no sexual segregation when it comes parental leave (it disregard the parent sex when assessing the time spent out of active employment). But, it isn't completly free of gender role since it still consume the same cultural product then us and does carry a baggage of sexism that isn't completly erased (affecting mostly older persons, while children will probably never face these issues). History doesn't disapear in two decades and neither are they cut from the world.

Actually they have. In fact they will even censor things. Now sweden has freedom of speech, so you probably ask "Duke, the hell you mean censorship, censorship is illegal there." And I would say you are right. So lets look at swedens free speech as explained by wikipedia:

Sweden protects freedom of speech and was a pioneer in officially abolishing censorship. A small number of restrictions remain such as child pornography, hate speech and libel. Cinema films are subject of advance censorship, otherwise there is an afterwards legal process if applicable."

I labeled hate speech for a reason. Here is why. Now wikipedia does have the way hate speech so let me place it here:

"Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights."

Now the problem lies in which public statements are considered. This source shows a few things that sweden blocked from the media.

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/01/29/...984-style/

And here is an example of its touchy meaning is the fact it banned dead or alive dimensions. The claim made is that it promoted child porn because you could slightly look up the skirt of characters that are underage. There are no genitalia showed in the game, and no grappling someone and throwing them is not foreplay. However it was still banned.

I would also like to add that sweden is pretty much run by feminist, old and young.


To add Sweden is a very feminist country, one in which feminism is taught through out the lives of students, even having a feminist text book. They are very critical of many things brought into Sweden. Again feminist textbooks.

This is the same country that is trying to make it so that men also have to sit while peeing.

Why do I bring all of this up? Because at this point sweden is pretty much if tumblr was a country. Meaning they have done everything to make things gender neutral. Not going to go into how all of this has back fired. That is a different topic for a different day.

I say this so that I can explain why even in sweden gender preferences exist. I also forgot to add that in the toy studies, each of the subjects were used at an age in which social constructs could not really be understood.

Also I would like to add, because you mentioned Scandinavian, Norway has cut funds from gender studies in their country. It was from this documentary here:





I just would like to add a bit more to the conversation(and so that we don't forget how this all started)

(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The point I am trying to make is that those influence are affecting our «freedom» to choose. If factors either biological or sociological favor a choice over another, I can't say that this was purely MY CHOICE.

Let me explain it this way. Now that we agree it is both, the biology would be like this.

For example females normally produce oxytocin, which is known as the love hormone. This hormone exist in men too, but it is produced by women more and it makes women more caring. This again drives women to want to care. This for most women is not a choice. However what they do with this is the choice. whether it is to raise kids, or take care of sick animals or people. Now I should add just because women want to care for something, doesn't mean they will be good at it. In fact how they care for something is also a choice. You can argue that people teach girls to take care of there kids, sometimes even how, but many times they choose to ignore it. They can be told to raise there kid this way, and still not do it.

Men are the same. Men tend to produce more vasopressin, which in turn effects males differently from females. This makes males more aggressive and sexual. Now again what he does with this is his choice. He can become a cop who hits the gym and takes care of kids, or become leatherface.


https://younglab.yerkes.emory.edu/Getz/2...%20BBR.pdf

As I said before it maybe normal for this to happen, but it doesn't always happen. Some times males and females tend to produce in abnormal ways, i.e pretty much that they produce more hormones and have brain development of something not common in their gender. This mostly leads to homosexuals and transsexuals.

And what do you expect, we are still animals, mammals in fact. We are not the only animal effected by this. Chimpanzees too go through this. The difference is that, unlike most animals, humans can use their instincts in different ways. Women can be a mom and another be the person who makes the medicine for babies, and men can be a serial killer and another man is the guy who stops him.


(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It's as much my choice than a result of my circomstances. Biological and sociological influences explain largely why men and women make drastically different choice. The objective of my feminist school of thought is to abolish gender roles and criticise, elliminate and/or find ways to compensate for the biological and sociological influences that push men and women in a position instead of another.

A. First, you would have a point of change if it was only social factors, but biology is different. We are the way we are now because of sexual selection. Men tend to prefer women with wide hips and are great at caring for kids. Women prefer strong men who can provide and care for her and their kids. It is this which has worked for years. Now because it is evolution, humans can evolve to work in a different way. However in the current year, gender roles still have a place in many lives, even when the roles have been switched. Meaning when a woman is the bread winner and the male is the one taking care of the kids most of the time.

B. I have a problem with you saying eliminate and/or compensate for the biological and sociological influences. It sounds a lot like you are trying to control people and what they do. To add, you acknowledge biology, something that can't change even in a population. So how are you going to get rid of people's biological tendancies? Is it going to be like how they try to cure the gay? Is there going to be something called cure the biological parts of you that cause you to make choices that don't conform to what have been "taught" in gender studies? There is a reason many people in gender studies teach that biology has nothing to due with human behavior. Because when you take biology into account you realize that you can't change what people do, even if you don't like it.


(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The idea is to offer men and women a real choice on how to organise/live their lives which without biological or sociological influence might very well be «a coin toss» on most things. The end goal is to produce a society where men and women are represently equaly (or at least 40/60 if you need to make some compromise) in all sphere of the society.

I would explain the coin thing as false, but I would be repeating myself.

Anyway have you noticed that you are sounding incredibly religious. I mean just replace choice with salvation and equality with jesus. The fact you are saying your way is the real choice is no different the the real way to find peace is to find jesus. Claiming your way and ideology is the only way to do something is like how religious people do it. It is also strange to see how your way of doing things is the best way of doing things, again like religion. Now there is nothing wrong with a ratio of 40/60% of either men in women in a place, as long it is because of choice. However I have seen the feminist way of doing this in sweden, and now they regret it. How did they do it? Positive discrimination. http://arhiva.dalje.com/en-world/sweden-...ion/289636

And they ended it because they realize it is crap. My point is the religious way of how feminism does it wrong. So the only way to equality is to allow people to have freedom of choice. A place were nobody can ban somebody from a job. Meaning that if a women wants to be a coal miner, when she is qualified she can. This is freedom of opportunity.



(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  This is what I, and my fellow transfeminist, consider equality of men and women. In my opinion, a society where there is a strong, visible and recognisable disparetees between men and women roles in society will necessarly develop a form of discrimination/inequality toward one sex depending on the specific field (exemple: women will be considered less apt for accounting, but men less apt at children care)
or to more vast sphere of influence for exemple carring being a women occupation while ruling is a men one. Yes, it can and does involve going against mother nature and social convention at the same time.

Same=/=equal. Having men and women the same doesn't equal, equal. Humans are sexually dimorphic, meaning even past genitalia men and women will be different. Masculinity and femininity work in harmony, which is why we as a species has survived so long with gender roles. When you try to force people into things they don't want by saying it is not equality. It is a form of control. I am not saying that you shouldn't be aloud to say what you want, even if I disagree, after all that is freedom of speech. However the problem is that getting rid of gender roles doesn't make a society better. I will get into that while addressing the next claim because it transitions better.

(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  To tackle your assertion that boys have higher drop out rates. Yes, I believe it's linked to traditionnal gender roles(but also some biological factor like attention span and linguistical abilities) since men, especially in the middle/low class, were never encouraged to reach high level of education to obtain high pay jobs and respectful status until the late 80's.

But the thing is that most people going to college now weren't born in the 80's, I am of college age, my class graduated last year. So yes many are taught to achieve that. But there still is a problem with boys in college. Also traditional gender roles are not the answer because many men are engineers, as it is a high paying job. That would instead make men want to go towards college to get high paying jobs in order to take care of there mate and the kids. So that isn't why. So far the best explanation is the way boys are treated.

(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  With globalisation, these jobs are rarer, yet the cultural importance of the «hard worker men» is still vivid. As for your mention of it being pushed under the rug, As a teacher in both high school and college I can tell you this is pure bullshit. Here's a little exemple of the kind o thing that is published (http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmi...e_an.pdf). Basically, a new program for public schools was written with this specifically in its objective (ir was a failure, but for completly unrelated reasons), programs of work-studies were developped, Sport concentration and parascolar activities became twice more common.

But the hard working man is vivid because that is what women want. A hard working man is one who is successful, intelligent, strong, supportive of her needs. This is why it exist, men do it not just for more money but for female attention. Sexual selection has never left our species.

And yes it has been pushed under the rug. This is no different than the male domestic abuse. When you tell them that there is a problem about it an male shelters the point to one and say well there for it is not a problem. This is ignoring the fact that that they are rare and many aren't that helpful. It is the same here. Teachers have been shown to grade girls higher on their test:

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/...81236.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat...43937.html

This can explain why boys tend not to want to go to university. However do they ever teach such things in gender studies? No, because of the lie of male privilege and patriarchy. There can't be a world were men are disadvantage and it not be from either of those things.

(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It is treated very seriously and makes the head line about once every few month in my province. Thanks to the influence of feminism, girls do see and are encouraged to pursue higher study much more openly.

Well I can't speak for canada in how often it is shown, but here in the U.S nobody cares about men. Even in government nobody there is trying to help boys and their education like they do girls.

And this brings up something that I don't want to say, and that is we might need the MRM. I don't really like it because most issues in the west is not male or female but more something that hits everyone, but all the issues that hit men are actual issues that see no bright future.

Men up the most suicides, the most workplace death, prostate cancer is much less funded and researched than breast cancer, men in the U.S have to apply for the draft if they want to vote, men are treated worst in court than women. And that is only a few. And the thing is feminism isn't for these issues. They only know this issues because they want to make sure the MRAs don't have a foot to stand on. They call these people sexist, but what is sexist about saying society is worst to men.

On top of that feminism offers no solution. Gender roles being removed doesn't help. Take suicide for example. Places like mexico and the U.S have lower suicide rates than places like sweden, and sweden has pretty much removed gender roles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/wor...erate.html

Teaching men to show their feelings doesn't help either, men are not as good at communication and speaking than females. Not only that, but men express emotions differently than women, so making men express emotions the way that works for women isn't the way to do it either. So the factors feminism tries to help men with won't help at all, and is instead a way to try to help men while holding on that they have power and privilege.

(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I hope this help clarify the situation a bit we are talking accross one another on several points. I am sorry for that.

No need to apologize, if that is the case it is probably meTongue


(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Metazoa Zeke

Biology is women field in the large sense of the term. Women gender role sets them has responsible for caring. Before modern medecine, herborists, apothicaries, nurses and other «doctors» were mostly women in our culture (not so much in China or Black Africa).

This not true. Biology was very male dominated through out history.

http://totallyhistory.com/biography/famous-biologists/

As shown in the list most of our famous biologist are men.

Doctors for a while in history were shaman, which were also the people working with medicine. Maybe if you said nursing, then sure, but medicine was also male dominated.

(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It's only in the last 200 years that the tendency has been reversed. The biology field was developped amongst other thing (and I would dare say mostly) for and by the advancement of medecine. Thus, while not especially femine like nursing, it's strongly connected to it. Basically, highly educated women educate themselves in the field that matches the most their type of «calling» so to speak. Thus biology being a field of science dominated by women is neither surprising or unexpected.

Well so how is it strongly connected with femininity when for most of human history it was mostly men doing it? When did it become feminine. I know you are probably thinking that "well duke, you said that women have a tendancy towards biology because they like to care for things." I did say that however, what I am saying here is that it is not a feminine field.

(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Amongst other STEM domain with a strong women representation, you will see psychologie for the same reason. Caring for the destitute, the poor, the children and the elderly was (and still is) considered a women's «vocation».

Through out history both men and women carried for the poor. Women tend to want to be more caring, but men never through care out the window. So men have for years done the same thing. Maybe if you said just children you would have a point, but both men and women have taken care of the poor, elderly, and destitute for years.

(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You can try to find biological reasons to explain the sex disparity (and there is some), but men have demonstrated that they can and do have the ability to develop the same level of skills and attitude to excel at those «vocation» time and again making. That's how we got people like Martin Luther King or Walter Reed.

That is because men were never not for caring. Why do you think for years married men would work and provide? That is how men cared for people for years. Men back then would also play with their kids. In fact it was expected of them. Like the example of a father playing football with his son. So I don't think anyone has said that men don't have a deposition of caring, but that men do it in a different way and that men would tend to prefer something involving work.

(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Why shouldn't we encourage them more since, despite their biological makeup, men are just as good then women at caring for the destitute, the poor, the children and the elderly?

I mean boys are taught that. Treating people like human beings was never something we never taught young boys. If anything, most people say a man should take care of kids.


(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Enouraging people to do something they are not «naturally» inclined to do can only result in them developping new skills and a more profound mindset. Plus, studies have shown that sexual segregation (or any other type of segregation based on a visible minority) can affect negatively the formation and training of people in the minority by creating what is referred as a covert curricula (a formation that is passed through informal means like culture and attitude and isn't analysed, critiqued or evaluated impartially).

Well you can encourage, doesn't mean it will work. Again, if they choose not to, then they won't.

I can agree that we should not segregate women and men from jobs. However, the implication is something else. Which is why they will tell you we need more female physicist, but never more female coal miners, fishers, or even construction workers. I do believe we should encourage women into science, so no I am not saying that doing that is a bad thing. But it seems as if they want females to own high respected, high paying jobs, but it is okay for men to always keep high pay, yet low respected and dangerous jobs.


(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Covert curricula can appear and negatively impact the performances of people outside of «stereotypical» member of the group and thus lead to difficulty for non-stereotypical members of the group to enter, prosper, succeed and enjoy themselves during their training and later during their work.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8519...ganley.pdf

^ stereotype threat can't do much, as even if it does exist it doesn't do much.

(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)epronovost Wrote:  This in turn leads to even an even stronger form segregation (AKA if you are not doing it it's because you cannot possibly do it).

Well thing is that it is not about segregating men and women, but the capable from the non-capable. Take construction. Men on average strong then women, meaning men are much more likely to be able to lift heavy things off the ground compared to women. Now if there are a few women strong enough to do it, they can get the job. However they are rare and won't make up much of the construction workforce.

The reason why things like physics and mathematics are gaining females is because females are capable of mathematics like men are. Only difference there is what part of the brain male and females use. It is like the IQ test between men and women, they use different parts of the brain but still match up the same.

The problem is that people thing same =/= equal, when that is not the case. Because of our biology, we might never be equal in that sense. I believe that humans can evolve to a animal that is not sexually dimorphic, but then the question comes from what would cause this change? Men have an advantage when it comes to things like manipulating objects, going through mazes , guiding projectiles, and even reaction time shown in this paper. While girls are better at processing speed involving letters,digits and rapid naming task, they are better at object location and verbal memory, females are better at at matching items and precision tasks, such as placing pegs into designated holes, and remember landmarks.

These are cognitive things that happen to exist thanks to sexual selection. Men and women normally have advantages that you can't really change. Even on day one, human babies show gender differences in choices.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 02:29 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 03:37 PM by epronovost.)
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

You have a blind spot the size of building when it comes to social justice issues in my opinion. You completly fail to recognise the influence of tradition, stereotypes and covert curicula which support biological differences (and sometimes inhibit them). You see the wave pay gap for exemple and correctly analyse that most of the gap is actualy caused by differences in working hours, job types, experience and academic level. What you fail to recognise is how our culture (not to mention our politics) might have an impact on those differences and decision. How many women chose to take time off for their family because they were raised, educated, encouraged and expected to do it. Saying it's purely down to our biological makeup is completly false, it indeed has some importance, but is far from being the most important factor. Women form closer bonds with their children than men because of their hormonal level and brain architecture (amongst other things). This means they will love and care for their children. This doesn't imply a how they will do it. Being a stay at home spouse is work. It involves a specific set of task, skills, responsabilities, challenges, interractions, etc. The only difference is that like vonlunteer work, its not paid. Slaving away on a job you hate for bying them a future is loving and caring just as much as playing with them, changing them, cleaning them, cooking for them. The reason men choose option one and women option two in a pretty systematic fashion is completly cultural. If it was purely down to your preferences, you would see a lot of diversity, because people are very different in terms of interest, desire, dreams and talent. Since it's so systematic, it means something else is at work, because we would not expect so much homogeneity. It is possible to demonstrate it simply by finding a culture that does the opposite. If thousand of people for hundred of years can do the opposite, then this means it's not down to your biologie, but to your culture. Afterall, all human are from the same race and thus all have the same biological foundation.

Indeed, some cultures have developped a system that is blantantly in opposition to our vision of gender role and would make Sweden look like sexist pigs (exageration here). Here is a culture that still exist today, other similar have existed in our past though (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/...ionships). Would you say those culture are tyrannical forcing poor men to have their nipples suckled by their babies to appease them and taking care of them up to five time more than some society? In all honesty, have you even considered once that this could be a good use of your nipples or this could be a parenting technics that produce great results? I know that before reading this, I never even thought anybody had even considered that. Knowing the benefit it might have for your child and its relationship with you, would you do it? I know that personnaly I would be very uncomfortable with this idea, much like I would feel uncomfortable wearing a skirt only if its because of cultural reason. Maybe I would enjoy skirts, but I never even tried one in my life. How can I say I have chosen pants over them? I never even made the test. I have no clue if I would feel more comfortable in one or the other. Same things for leggings and stockings even if these two were worn by men for centuries, now they aren't. I never questionned my cloathing habits on the basis of gender, even if rationnaly skirts aren't «more feminine» than pants. It's the same thing for gender roles. Did I chose pants or did I simply fit in the mold the society gave me without even thinking about it for real?

Women dominated the field of medecine in the western world if only because of herborists and wise women (yes shaman could be women to just as often as they could be men). These two groups of person, vastly more women than men, were giving medical assistence to the poor who constitute a vast majority of the population. People remember Hypocrate, the father of western medecine, but nobody remembers the thousand of women who's job was to help women deliver babies and god knows at that time there were a lot of those. In terms of historical influence, yes men dominated that field, but in terms of «boots on the ground» actually trying to cure people, caring for them, picking them up and stiching them back together, women were outnumbering them significantly. Yes there were men in the field, but they were academics and on top of the «food chain» so to speak. They were taking care of the rulers, not the pleb in most cases. Even in the 19th century, most people didn't have the money or the chance to see a doctor. That's the reason why traditionnal remedies are called grandma cures and not grandpa cures. Women dominated that field and when they finally gained the right to take part in the Academia, they naturally went for the domain that was related the most to their sphere of influence and action in our society, thus biology. No, biology isn't «feminine», but the fact that it's now dominated by women is far from beinf unexpected or surprising. Neither is their domination of the law domain because of the massive impact of feminism on history and women perception of themselves (thankfully we made a lot of progress on that point even if there are still work to do in my opinion).

PS: link about what is done in the US about boys dropout (http://www.edutopia.org/student-dropout-...rategies). This issue has a shit ton of attention too, but you need to interest yourself in the education system significantly to have the courage to read those rather boring articles. By simply googling it, I have seven other articles like that and even a cogressionnal earing on the subject.

PPS: You sould not diss on the breast cancer funding since you can actually get breast cancer too. It's just much less prevalent than amongst women. The fact that women take more care of their health, again purely for cultural reasons, and because men are expected to be tough, doesn't help the funding of men disease. This cultural trait, is often cited as one of the worst cause for men's poor mental health. If you want a good, manly idea, to raise awarness for the prostate cancer, you can try to kickstart a Movember foundation to raise awarness about this issue in your area. This foundation got really popular in Canada after the death of a very popular politician from complication from a prostate cancer and its goofy theme quickly catched on (it's letting your mustache grow during all the month of November). Since the kickstart of that foundation about 10 yeas ago, they are now responsible for about half the money raised to fight it. Breast cancer receive a lot of funding because they have lots of campaign involving people and sponsors. Women orginsation worked really hard to receive those funds and keep on doing so (the fact that charity organisation like cancer society, MSF, WWF are also financed mostly by women helps a lot, but this to is mostly cultural).

PPPS: A covert curricula isn't just a form of stereotype threat. It's also an informal mehod of educatio based on culture and communication method. Men and women aren't raised in the same way in our culture, neither do they have the same biological background. Thus, in addition to being a form of stereotype threat, they are also biased toward member of the «minority» sex by relating them to unknown or barely known cultural references and attitudes or by trying to capitalised on a mental process that doesn't work in the same way in one sex or another.

Nota Bene: for the benefit of the discussion, not all feminist schools, even amongst those involved in the 3rd wave feminism, are gender abolitionist. In fact, it's debatable if they even represent a majority since the largest feminist organisation aren't supporting this sort of revolution and are very active on numerous subject from conciliation of family and work for women, media representation of women, sexual rights, feminism and ethnic minorities, representation of women in position of power and intersectionnal studies AKA negative impact of sexism on men (the corner stone of 3rd wave feminism revendication in North America). It's my personnal opinion, but in no way engages the entire feminist mouvement (or even its majority) currently active

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
23-03-2016, 11:50 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Metazoa Zeke

You have a blind spot the size of building when it comes to social justice issues in my opinion.

Many of these issues aren't issues, just left wing propaganda. Later on you will see why.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You completly fail to recognise the influence of tradition, stereotypes and covert curicula which support biological differences (and sometimes inhibit them). What you fail to recognise is how our culture (not to mention our politics) might have an impact on those differences and decision.

No I haven't. Seeing as you literally used an example I used to explain how biological factors yourself. Let me show you what I mean.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Women form closer bonds with their children than men because of their hormonal level and brain architecture (amongst other things). This means they will love and care for their children. This doesn't imply a how they will do it.

^what you said

Quote:For example females normally produce oxytocin, which is known as the love hormone. This hormone exist in men too, but it is produced by women more and it makes women more caring. This again drives women to want to care. This for most women is not a choice. However what they do with this is the choice. whether it is to raise kids, or take care of sick animals or people. Now I should add just because women want to care for something, doesn't mean they will be good at it. In fact how they care for something is also a choice. You can argue that people teach girls to take care of there kids, sometimes even how, but many times they choose to ignore it. They can be told to raise there kid this way, and still not do it.

^what I said

See. Never dismissed it. But I will get on that more in a bit

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  How many women chose to take time off for their family because they were raised, educated, encouraged and expected to do it. Saying it's purely down to our biological makeup is completly false, it indeed has some importance, but is far from being the most important factor.

Let me break something down that I hope you can understand. I see humanity like a seed. And this seed was planted and had started growing its roots(the biological factors). This tree will of course grow from these roots with its many branches(the cultural factors). The thing is that this tree works by having the roots feeding the tree, and the tree be a result of the roots feeding into the tree and its branches, while the branches are the result of it. Now without the roots the tree would die from malnutrition, and without the tree, what would the roots be? It would be a unsuccessful tree. So what I am getting at is the our social constructs have their roots in our biological factors, however the social constructs are a result of it. In turn the tree of humanity needs both a social construct and biological factor. These are what the tree(humanity) is. Can you imagine a tree without roots or only be the roots? I can't. Which is why I have a problem with both social and biological determinism. It is also why I think nature vs nurture might be a false dilemma.

Now on the biological factors not being that important, I can't say that is true at all. After seeing all these neurological ,hormonal differences between men and women, to say that is not important would be a strange thing, if not wrong thing to say. If anything they are just as important as social factors. I want to use toy preferences in boys and girls as an example.

Now as I have shown little boys like mechanical parts, things that move, things that can be built and function. Little girls like things with faces, things that can be cuddle and are recognizable. Even at age of 1 day, when shown a thing with a mechanical part and a face, the males would look at the mechanical part and the girls would look at the face. Keep in mind these choices could not be influenced into children just born. These would be a biological factor.

The social factor would be which choose they play with. For example, before the invention of the car, little boys would play with chariots, and before barbie girls would play with some sort of rag doll. Now because of cultural changes, boys now play with cars and girls play with barbies. What the boys and girls are given to play with is the social part.

Now there are a few factors that can change this preference. For example females exposed to androgen(are hormone in which is normally involved in the development of male babies) will go and play with traditionally masculine toys.

This also explains the reason for why toy stores separate boy toys and girl toys. These toys are separated that way because of the differences that have been shown through seeing what boys and girls prefer. Which would in turn be the social construct(separating boys and girls toys) started from a biological factor(boys normally preferring mechanical parts and girls preferring things with faces)

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The reason men choose option one and women option two in a pretty systematic fashion is completly cultural.

Well then the problem I have with it being completely cultural is the fact that these traits were selected. I mean as explained before masculinity and femininity complement each other. Now in sexual selection humans are going to choose which mate they find the best for young. For example a male human would prefer a woman with wide hips so that she can easily give birth to his offspring, one with big breast, because more milk to feed babies. One who knew how to gather berries and fruit in order to help him with feeding each other, and one who was willing to care for children so that when he was away the baby would be okay. Females would prefer a male who was successful, because then he could survive and help her. One who knew how to hunt to help in feeding each other. Some one who is strong so that she knows he can take down bigger food.

Now it is the current year, and things are different for us. But if you ask men, I think we are going back to how we were during our origins. Think about it. Men do need women to work to help. Hell even hunting. Women might not have hunted big animals, but birds were fair game(get it? Beat_stick okay sorry). My point is that men and women both did work. But these gender roles did give us an edge during or evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...umans.html

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If it was purely down to your preferences, you would see a lot of diversity, because people are very different in terms of interest, desire, dreams and talent.

In an equal society it is purely down to preference, but many people share a certain preference commonly. Again gender equality paradox.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Since it's so systematic, it means something else is at work, because we would not expect so much homogeneity. It is possible to demonstrate it simply by finding a culture that does the opposite. If thousand of people for hundred of years can do the opposite, then this means it's not down to your biologie, but to your culture. Afterall, all human are from the same race and thus all have the same biological foundation.

Well it can only not be your biology if you think it is absolute. However it isn't. Another thing is that as I have posted, gender roles have given humans an advantage for years. Even if they were never as separate as women always have to stay home, in fact I think that was really only for a short time in history. However, these roles are normal and have helped give us an edge in evolution. Now am I saying that everyone should follow gender roles? No, because that isn't freedom of choice for those who happen to have development past something normal should have a choice not to follow it. Now just because gender roles aren't good mean they are bad? No. In the current year the are neutral. Meaning it is not good are bad. You know what else was is neutral? Homosexuality. And it has probably existed just as long. The only people who seem to have a problem with gender roles are those in gender studies. And I now understand the reason for this. But that is for a later day.

To add no it won't. Finding one society out of all of them that doesn't follow gender roles doesn't mean that therefore biology plays no role. It would be the exception to the rule, meaning that despite its existence, that doesn't mean the rule is false past them.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Indeed, some cultures have developped a system that is blantantly in opposition to our vision of gender role and would make Sweden look like sexist pigs (exageration here). Here is a culture that still exist today, other similar have existed in our past though (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/...ionships). Would you say those culture are tyrannical forcing poor men to have their nipples suckled by their babies to appease them and taking care of them up to five time more than some society?

No not really. In the aka tribe they are incredibly short and small, and at best can only hunt game. Now when you think about humans in the past in places like europe, the middle east, north africa, and north america for example, men would hunt dangerous animals like mammoths, large bovines, and other horned herbivores. You can't be a small man and hunt large animals. On top of that, women are usually weaker than men. Because of this men would be strong and powerful in order to hunt and take down bigger animals. As that culture began to change, men started to go from hunting big animals to doing dangerous jobs. Men tend to be coal miners workers, construction workers, trash collectors, and loggers. These are dangerous jobs that men are willing to take because of a mans disposition to do dangerous things to support his family. The aka tribe are a bad comparison because we have a different way of survival than they do.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In all honesty, have you even considered once that this could be a good use of your nipples or this could be a parenting technics that produce great results?

No thanks to testostrone males tend to have this flat nipples that are usually hairy and provide no milk. I don't think babies would enjoy trying to remove milk from a hairy nipple that is hard to grip on to and will have no milk anyway. Trust me, when you build muscle, you tend to have nipples that are hard to suck off of.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It's the same thing for gender roles. Did I chose pants or did I simply fit in the mold the society gave me without even thinking about it for real?

Except gender roles are a result of sexual dimorphism, which are a result of our biology. Clothing choice is something that is purely cultural, but gender roles have their roots in biology.




(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Women dominated that field and when they finally gained the right to take part in the Academia, they naturally went for the domain that was related the most to their sphere of influence and action in our society, thus biology. No, biology isn't «feminine», but the fact that it's now dominated by women is far from beinf unexpected or surprising. Neither is their domination of the law domain because of the massive impact of feminism on history and women perception of themselves (thankfully we made a lot of progress on that point even if there are still work to do in my opinion).

The reason this is brought up is because if biology, physics, and mathematics were all dominated by men and would have this bias towards woman, why would biology all of a sudden give in. Keep in mind there is supposed to be a bias against women in all S.T.E.M was the claim, but this changes to now only mathematics and physics have a bias towards women. It almost sounds like moving the goal post if you ask me.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  PS: link about what is done in the US about boys dropout (http://www.edutopia.org/student-dropout-...rategies). This issue has a shit ton of attention too, but you need to interest yourself in the education system significantly to have the courage to read those rather boring articles. By simply googling it, I have seven other articles like that and even a cogressionnal earing on the subject.

Well credit were credit is do. It might no include boys alone, but there is something about dropping out of school. Honestly I hope soon I will be wrong and male drop out rates are low.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  PPS: You sould not diss on the breast cancer funding since you can actually get breast cancer too.

When did I diss breast cancer? I just said that breast cancer research was more paid for than prostate cancer. Not once did I say that breast cancer funding is bad. I don't believe bringing down funding of breast cancer will help prostate cancer funding. I have no idea were you would get that. If anything I am just saying that we should give as much money to prostate cancer like we do breast cancer.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It's just much less prevalent than amongst women. The fact that women take more care of their health, again purely for cultural reasons, and because men are expected to be tough, doesn't help the funding of men disease. This cultural trait, is often cited as one of the worst cause for men's poor mental health.

EHHH kinda. Men also tend to only visit a doctor when they are really sick.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness...?a=viewall

About it being cultural, it is, but there is a biological reason for it. What is this reason. Women worry more. On top of that males aggressiveness tends to be stubborness, and as mentioned before that is something that our brains tend to carry out, meaning it is not purely cultural. But it does prove the point I made about 3rd wave feminism trying to "help" men by trying to throw their agenda in it.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If you want a good, manly idea, to raise awarness for the prostate cancer, you can try to kickstart a Movember foundation to raise awarness about this issue in your area. This foundation got really popular in Canada after the death of a very popular politician from complication from a prostate cancer and its goofy theme quickly catched on (it's letting your mustache grow during all the month of November).

That is a good start, however like the problems I have with international women's day, it shouldn't be only one time a year. Like how everyday of the year we should care about women's rights around the world, every month we should be concerned about prostate cancer. But on the kick starter thing I will keep that in mind

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Since the kickstart of that foundation about 10 yeas ago, they are now responsible for about half the money raised to fight it. Breast cancer receive a lot of funding because they have lots of campaign involving people and sponsors. Women orginsation worked really hard to receive those funds and keep on doing so (the fact that charity organisation like cancer society, MSF, WWF are also financed mostly by women helps a lot, but this to is mostly cultural).

Well society does care more about women than men, but as long as we can just solve issues I don't care who is preferred.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  PPPS: A covert curricula isn't just a form of stereotype threat.

Again many problems with stereotype threat. I don't think you want it to have any part with sterotype threat was shown here not only is it hard to replicate, but there is a publication bias within stereotype threat. This is again one of the major problems with trying to use it. At best can be a hypothesis, and in no way could it there for dismiss bias as an answer even if it is wrong, but even if it was true the effect would be very small. In other words, building something on stereotype threat is like building a house on quick sand.


(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Nota Bene: for the benefit of the discussion, not all feminist schools

I know this, I don't know how many times I mentioned feminism has done great things, and even posted factual feminist videos. I know not all feminism is the same.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Even amongst those involved in the 3rd wave feminism, are gender abolitionist.

In other words, controlling how people live, even though what they don't like works for who knows how many people around the world. You know I never got why gender roles were even a problem? In fact it again brings me to Christianity and their hatred for homosexuality. Like how 3rd wave feminist hate gender roles, Christianity hates homoexuality. While neither homosexuality and gender roles are good, they are not evil either. Which brings me to the question, why do peoples choices bother other people when it doesn't bother them? Don't like gender roles? Great, go do what works for you, if the majority of the america just so happens to choose following gender roles because they choose it and it makes them happy, so be it, that is their business. It is the same thing with christians? Don't like homosexuality, well good on you, but two men making love in a barn does not effect you, so let them be who they are and be happy.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. America, Canada, Norway, and many other developed countries who have equality and a lot of freedom, have an gender equality paradox, while countries like Indonesia, china, and Russia have men and women occupy all fields pretty much equally. And I am sure I would rather live in America, Canada, and Norway, then Indonesia, China, and Russia. So are the way Indonesia,China, and Russia better than western countries?

Again you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I will leave this quote here:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

C.S Lewis

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In fact, it's debatable if they even represent a majority since the largest feminist organisation aren't supporting this sort of revolution.

And this is where my problem lies with 3rd wave feminism. Let me compare feminism to the nightmare on elm street series. Imagine you have the original nightmare on elm street(first wave feminism) and A nightmare on elm street dream warriors(second wave feminism). Third wave feminism would be the 2010 version of nightmare on elm street. Something you would not want near the amazing nightmare on elm street movies because the other nightmare on elm street movies are smart witty, and barely anyone can say it was bad, and it can bring joy,while the 2010 nightmare on elm street is god awful, pointless, and nobody besides a few people will enjoy it.

Hell 3rd wave feminism has a problem with egalitarianism, when feminism is an egalitarian movement. It is so bad, many people now think of a false dilemma.

And again I know not all feminist, again I separate third wave from other feminist for a reason. There is a term known as the anti-feminist feminist. Hell even Julie Bindel gets flack from third wave feminist. In fact, when someone had a discussion with milo yiannopoulos, he told them that he and Julie Bindel were supposed to have a discussion on if feminism was against free speech. Not only did they cancel it, they banned Julie before Milo. Let that sink in.


(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  and are very active on numerous subject from conciliation of family and work for women,

Women can work were they want, as long as they have the credentials.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  media representation of women

First world problem. Both men and women would get a "bad" media repersentation.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  sexual rights

Here in the U.S the issue of abortion is pretty much democracy, not female oppression. In fact more women are pro-life than men. I can either be pro-life or pro-choice depending on the country. Here in the U.S for example I am pro-choice, but I respect democracy and if more people vote against abortion than for it, that is just democracy in work. I don't like it, but that is just the result of are freedom to decide.

Other than that I don't know what other sexual right there are?

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  feminism and ethnic minorities,

After what I have seen I think feminism should leave ethnic issues to other civil rights movements. Feminism can work on women in ethnic minorities, but not ethnic issues as a whole. And no I don't speak as a white man I am a negro, and if I was going to talk about this I would talk about the left and racial issues as a whole(and no I am not conservative either), but this would be going way off topic if we went this road. So on another day if you want to talk to me about this, we can, but not now.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  representation of women in position of power

Like boys, I do believe you should teach girls to aspire to many goals in life. I know that biology can and will get in the way and effect choices, but we should still teach them that you can be what you want to be.

(23-03-2016 02:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  and intersectionnal studies AKA negative impact of sexism on men (the corner stone of 3rd wave feminism revendication in North America). It's my personnal opinion, but in no way engages the entire feminist mouvement (or even its majority) currently active

This is my problem with feminism and trying to fix mens issues. There is an agenda.
First is trying to shut down the MRAs. Again I am not an MRA, but I can understand why feminism all of a sudden picked up on mens issues. MRM has existed since the 70's and is a kind of result of feminism at the time, because feminism was not addressing men's issues. Like hyenas and lions, both did not get along. Because of this hatred of each other, they tend to try to demonize or make the other movement pointless. This will eventually lead to 3rd wave feminism saying it is for men's rights. Now this is where the problem lies. Is it really about men's rights or trying to deplatform MRAs? I think it is both, as I don't really accept the stereotype that 3rd wave feminist hate men. But then I noticed something about it.

And this is my second problem the agenda. I have seen when 3rd wave feminist take into account men's issues v.s MRAs. Feminist tend to go into it trying to bring the agenda that is patriarchy and that it is gender roles that hurt men. MRAs I have noticed tend to point towards the actual problems. Like most feminist I have seen blame male gender roles, and say that is the reason for unfair divorce proceedings towards men, while MRAs say we should just fix the court system. No agenda behind it, just fix the problem. So even if I were to grant feminism was really a bastion of men's rights, the problem is that it is trying to use real issues that effect men in order to push a certain view. Which is my problem with it. So if feminism is for men's right it should drop the gender roles are the problem idea, and instead just deal with the actual issue and be done with it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:36 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 06:42 AM by epronovost.)
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

You are aware that large game hunting was also made by women and children right? A tribe cannot hunt large game without the help of all of its members before the domestication of the horse. This idea of man hunter and woman gatherer was largely a victorian era myth debuncted by anthropologist in the mid 90's. Division of work in primitive society is a lot more complex and nuanced than this. Women, mature men and teenagers had the job of stalking them, marking the prey in the herd and pushing them in a trap were young men would make the kill, usually by tripping it in a pit fall and stonning and spearing it to death. That's how native american tribes were doing it before the introduction of the horse which allowed them to reduce the number of hunters necessary to hunt large game (note that this would have increased their number significantly and it did, before we exterminated them and their food stock). It wasn't some sort of heroic battle against nature. Hunting injuries were uncommon and most actual hunting was for small game. The key to survival was actually to be prudent and sophisticated. Reckless people get killed by large game, agressive ones attack to soon. You have to be patient and prudent to survive. A badly broken limb means you are probably going to die or at least turn into a burden to your tribe.

If you think men are almost exclusively in dangerous jobs because of our heritage as hunter gatherer you are simply wrong. Men are doing most of the dangerous jobs because many of these jobs forces you to be away from your familie sometime for weeks (and women take care of our children in our culture unlike others). Other flat out refused women in their ranks like fishermans, police officers or soldiers. We had to wait for the mid 70's to see those post openning to women. Imagine what sort of covert curicula those jobs can have. Mining, fishing and forestrial industries are almost exclusively men because of this and they are by far the most dangerous jobs. Farming, soldiers and police forces are also considered dangerous jobs and they are the ones where there is the most women and where their numbers are actually growing the most rapidely. In about 30 years now, in Canada, we estimate that our police force will be pretty much 50/50, farming will probably take 10 or 15 more years than that at this rythm. These jobs are also the one's that don't require to seperate yourself from your family for months at a time. Finally, when women start to get more numerous in a job, its numbers of casualties usually decrease. It seems women are indeed more prudent, push for more safety measure in their workplace and are generally more attentive to risk (again for various reasons). With this in mind, should we not encourage them in those field simply to help improving the worker safety?

Conciliation familly work has nothing to do with the capacity of women to work in a specific field if she has the credential. This is a completly unrelated issue. Conciliation family work It's about how they can manage their career and their family obligations once they have the job. We almost all have families at some point in our lives and we must take care of it. It's not a choice, it's a responsability. How we can do it is affected by our social organisation, our work organisation, our politics, our culture and traditions and a bit by our genetic. You will notice, that all the precedent can be modified and are social construct. There is a lot of work that can be done to improve our capacity to increase worker mobility in addition to encouraging men to embrace a more proactive role in parenting outside of the cliché bossy dad or football dad even if these were good dads (you can be much more than that).

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
24-03-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Metazoa Zeke
You are aware that large game hunting was also made by women and children right?

First, no it wasn't. Women with children could not hunt large game. If you had a kid why would you hunt a dangerous animal. A mammoth was not easy to kill. Mammoths, like elephants, were large dangerous animals that took a lot of risk to hunt. A mother with a baby would not make it and would end up dying. To add women and children a weaker then men. Men and women are a sexually dimorphic species. On top of that,natural selection even then picked men that had a lot more testosterone. This would mean they would be stronger and it be easier to hunt big game.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  A tribe cannot hunt large game without the help of all of its members before the domestication of the horse.

I don't know why you brought in horses. But just know that humans were able to hunt before the horse, in fact they hunted horses. You will see why later.


(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  This idea of man hunter and woman gatherer was largely a victorian era myth debuncted by anthropologist in the mid 90's.

Well not for the most part. Because SDL(sexual division of labour) is still valid and not falsified. In other words yes men were mostly hunters and women were mostly gathers. In certain reigions it would be men were mostly hunters of big, dangerous animals, while females would mostly hunt small animals and gather.

http://web.stanford.edu/~rbird/rbird/Pub...es/dol.pdf


Raising the kids was a team effort. In fact, new evidence shows that women would sleep with multiple men in order to get all of the men to help with raising kids. So yes it was a team effort.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex...iew-part-i

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Division of work in primitive society is a lot more complex and nuanced than this.

Not really. It is about region. As I said before, tribes in tropical areas usually have men hunting only, while colder areas seem to divide between what is hunted.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Women, mature men and teenagers had the job of stalking them, marking the prey in the herd and pushing them in a trap were young men would make the kill, usually by tripping it in a pit fall and stonning and spearing it to death. That's how native american tribes were doing it.

Well not really. From what I gathered women would help men hunt, but not by hunting with them, but instead crafting their spears.

http://www.indians.org/articles/native-a...women.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_rol...th_America

in fact the native americans were segregated in their roles enough for some europeans to compare women to slaves.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-conte...rian/23931


(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  before the introduction of the horse which allowed them to reduce the number of hunters necessary to hunt large game (note that this would have increased their number significantly and it did, before we exterminated them and their food stock).

Actually it didn't reduce the number, but instead increased the efficiency. So much so that they had to have an effort to protect buffalo.

To add the horse was not important for hunting for a long time. In fact horses are said to have been domesticated around 3500 BCE and they were domesticated for things like transportation and farming.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  It wasn't some sort of heroic battle against nature. Hunting injuries were uncommon and most actual hunting was for small game. The key to survival was actually to be prudent and sophisticated. Reckless people get killed by large game, agressive ones attack to soon. You have to be patient and prudent to survive. A badly broken limb means you are probably going to die or at least turn into a burden to your tribe.

Well seeing as men are still aggressive, evolution didn't think that it was something that would die off. I think the word impatient is the right word. Now I can't speak on how many men died while hunting, seeing as fossils are hard to find as it is. But this doesn't dismiss the fact that the hunting job was dangerous and being more risk averting, women tended not to do the job of hunting big animals.


(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  If you think men are almost exclusively in dangerous jobs because of our heritage as hunter gatherer you are simply wrong.

Men naturally are willing to take risk. Men willing to do dangerous jobs were sexually selected. Again it is the biological factor influencing the social factor. Men are going to do dangerous things in order to support their families. Men are willing to do dangerous things that women won't normally(if at all) pick up. It just moved from hunting dangerous

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Men are doing most of the dangerous jobs because many of these jobs forces you to be away from your familie sometime for weeks (and women take care of our children in our culture unlike others).

So are you saying men take these jobs to avoid their family? I think it is about providing for the family bro. Keep in mind men that hunted big animals, they took days to come back home. Men are naturally more willing to spend days a way from the family to provide.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Imagine what sort of covert curicula those jobs can have.

The problem is that it is not covert curicula, but are you capable. again men are stronger than women on average. When it comes to lifting heavy objects men on average do it better. Meaning that when applying to such jobs, men will almost always be capable of doing it. Now if a female is capable of doing it she will get the job. If she is not, she won't.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Finally, when women start to get more numerous in a job, its numbers of casualties usually decrease. It seems women are indeed more prudent, push for more safety measure in their workplace and are generally more attentive to risk (again for various reasons). With this in mind, should we not encourage them in those field simply to help improving the worker safety?

Really? Because work place deaths are increasing. http://www.safetynewsalert.com/workplace...-one-year/

In fact cop deaths increased by 17%. And yet more women are joining. My point? that adding women to a workplace won't make it safer. In fact in things like the military are said that integrating women into combat will cause problems.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015.../?page=all

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...y-pentagon

So do I think that we should ban women from combat roles? No. If anything I would rather not, but the facts are there. Women have a disadvantage in combat when comparied to to men. Sorry, those are the facts.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  How we can do it is affected by our social organisation, our work organisation, our politics, our culture and traditions and a bit by our genetic.

Not a bit of our genetics, but instead a lot of our hormones, neurological differences and of course evolution. Our natural disposition effects our choices. and in a free society we are aloud to express and have them. As I said gender equality paradox

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  You will notice, that all the precedent can be modified and are social construct.

Of a free society mind you. Remember Norway, America, and Canada have freedom of choice, and they all have this. Funny I bring up norway, because there they realized that in fact social construct is not the problem. In fact gender studies there tried to remove biology all together. However when presented with facts that biology effects choice a lot, they just denied it. There was no facts to prove that it was purely up to social construct and it embarassed norway so much they cut their gender studies funding. In fact the U.S did the same once they saw what happens when gender studies tries science.

(24-03-2016 06:36 AM)epronovost Wrote:  There is a lot of work that can be done to improve our capacity to increase worker mobility in addition to encouraging men to embrace a more proactive role in parenting outside of the cliché bossy dad or football dad even if these were good dads (you can be much more than that).

Do you think encouraging men would really make men change how they are fathers? The problem is that men won't. For example in norway they had a program that encouraged men to become nurses, and it failed.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view...rway/15213

This is because men are naturally inclined to do different jobs from women, and working with kids and being nurses because men don't want to do that. So if a man chooses to that is okay, but don't expect him to be a therefore all men can do it. The only way to do this is to remove peoples freedoms.

And dads usually do it that way because that is usually how men do it. This is how men bond with their children. It is here because it works. So if it works for most men, then it is time to just let men raise kids the way they do best.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

A few clarifcation.

1) Native American tribes did had variety in their gender roles. Central plain natives for exemple were very patriarchal, while Huron and Iroquois were very Matriarchal. Yes, in some of those tribes women were strongly segregated other less, some not almost not. In fact, about the slave comment three lines bellow, it mention the exact opposite, that the European in question was biased by his own cultural heritage. Read again.

2) Women aren't really disadvantaged in jobs like coal mining, lumbering or fisherman since, despite these being very physical job, a normally healthy adult can still do them. In the case of soldier and police officers, their disadvantage in combat due to strength has more to do with the combat system tought and not necessarly combat in general (we don't teach much martial arts developped by women (or using the same system) in police academies or in the army). That's an exemple of covert curicula.

3) The reason those program mostly failed is not due to irreductable differences in genetic in my opinion, but due to the fact they were to timid and weren't in effect for a very long time (less than 30 years). You don't change social norm and culture in much less than three generations (about 75 years). That's the time it takes for an average immigrant to be assimilated. They did produced results, they were just small. Give it time and more energy and you will see the difference. Just look at the perception of women now and our perception of them in 1930. You will see how a society can transform itself and gender role change.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
Feminism....

That's real cute honey....

Now be a good girl and get in the kitchen and grab me a beer and a sammich......



signed


Some bozo who's not getting any for a while...........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
24-03-2016, 03:23 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
Your flavour of biological determinism is horseshit, Ze-kun. Clinging to it at this point isn't particularly rational.

You've got a blind spot the size of a galaxy if you haven't run into all the exact same arguments being made with respect to race. Do those convince you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(24-03-2016 02:51 PM)epronovost Wrote:  2) Women aren't really disadvantaged in jobs like coal mining, lumbering or fisherman since, despite these being very physical job, a normally healthy adult can still do them.

Yeah they are. Because you have to lift heavy things really really heavy. If it came down to the average woman vs the average man, the average man is much much stronger. Hell when I was only in the 6 grade, I was this fat, lazy, nonathletic kid and I was still stronger than my mom, a woman who lifts heavy things for a living, as heavy as I was everyday. Compare that to my dad who was working but not as active, he was way stronger than me. Hell female hockey teams play against high school boys for practice. Seriously. There is a reason you will never see a women play in the NFL. Men a normally much stronger than women. And this goes back to the jobs. As a fisherman you have to haul large amounts of fish or crabs. If a women is weaker how long will it take for her to pull up the up the catch, and will it put the crew at risk? In lumber what is the chance a woman will give in and hurt(maybe kill) her fellow workers? Very. Which is why women are very rare in these jobs. It is not just choice, but also the fact that women normally aren't strong enough to do the lifting of these jobs. Now they can go for the job in which she counts the wood or drives the boat, but the lifting no, not unless she is a female bodybuilder.

(24-03-2016 02:51 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In the case of soldier and police officers, their disadvantage in combat due to strength has more to do with the combat system tought and not necessarly combat in general (we don't teach much martial arts developped by women (or using the same system) in police academies or in the army). That's an exemple of covert curicula.

That is because the martial arts we have works the best. There is no male and female martial arts. If the combat practice is too much for anyone, not just women, they are a burden. In combat there should not be burdens. This isn't covert curicula, this is if you aren't able to do it don't do it, because you will be putting peoples lives a risk. Gender quotas will do more harm than good.


(24-03-2016 02:51 PM)epronovost Wrote:  3) The reason those program mostly failed is not due to irreductable differences in genetic in my opinion, but due to the fact they were to timid and weren't in effect for a very long time (less than 30 years). You don't change social norm and culture in much less than three generations (about 75 years). That's the time it takes for an average immigrant to be assimilated. They did produced results, they were just small. Give it time and more energy and you will see the difference. Just look at the perception of women now and our perception of them in 1930. You will see how a society can transform itself and gender role change.

Ever notice a pattern in our discussion? Ever notice how women are easily able to take on masculine roles and males are displeased with feminine ones? Because women, like men, are supposed to work to. Even in the past women in certain areas would hunt and gather and still take care of the kid. They might not have been in a dangerous spot, but this pattern would be ingrained in the biology of women for human history. Even if you go back to the Victorian area, women did work. Maybe not jobs, but still work. Men however never did feminine things. The only one is taking care of the children, but that benefits the male. There is no benefit for a male nurse. The dangerous jobs are dangerous, but they pay much more. Men would rather have danger and high pay than safety and low pay. And men are more willing to take these jobs thanks to the competitiveness of males. There is really no competition in nursing. Men have a deposition for jobs, and no one teach young boys that it is better to pick a job that you will die than a nurse.

Also norway is a very feminist country, so it was going on for a while. But unlike encouraging women to go into traditionally masculine roles, trying to get men in traditionally female roles is like trying to make modern day japan a christian nation.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 03:44 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(24-03-2016 03:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your flavour of biological determinism is horseshit, Ze-kun. Clinging to it at this point isn't particularly rational.

You've got a blind spot the size of a galaxy if you haven't run into all the exact same arguments being made with respect to race. Do those convince you?

Where did I say it was only biology? Consider Many times I mentioned it was both.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: