The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Enuja » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

uncommon knowledge, this thread is about "the radical idea that women are people" not about men and autism! I'm not at all convinced that anything you are saying in this thread belongs in this thread at all. But, honestly, I can't be certain if your posts fit in this thread, because I'm not sure what you are saying. If you must keep posting in this thread, please (please!) improve your future posts to make them easier to understand.

Your last post is a list of links, without any discussion of what point those links are supposed to make. Your first two links are about Jenny McCarthy, the first a link to a Amazon.com review page of one of Jenny McCarthy's books, and the second to a Jenny McCarthy-is-stupid website. I agree that Jenny McCarthy is stupid, obnoxious, and dangerous about autism and vaccines (assuming that's the point you are trying to make), but what the hell does that have to do with the fact that she is a woman? There are stupid idiots of many genders; that's because there are many stupid idiots, not particularly because our society contains a lot of misandry or misogyny.

I don't even know what your third link is about, and I stopped following your links at the point. If you've got a point, please state your point as a clear thesis, and explain how each piece of "evidence" supports your thesis.
Last edited by Enuja on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:21 pm UTC

To try and bring things back on topic:

Feminism is wanting equal rights for women.
The most vocal and visible women who claim to be feminists are often man hating idiots, and a lot of people associate these women with feminism.
In general, men are better at some things than women, however some women are better at those things than some men.
In general, women are better at some things than men, however some men are better at those things than some women.
Lesbian porn is awesome.

Uhh... What's left to be said?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:45 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:To try and bring things back on topic:

Feminism is wanting equal rights for women.
The most vocal and visible women who claim to be feminists are often man hating idiots, and a lot of people associate these women with feminism.
In general, men are better at some things than women, however some women are better at those things than some men.
In general, women are better at some things than men, however some men are better at those things than some women.
Lesbian porn is awesome.

Uhh... What's left to be said?



The association of man hating and visible feminism has very little to do with what feminists actually do and a lot to do with straw-feminist tactics employed by those who have never seen the attitudes they decry in my experience. Yes there are man-hatin' 'feminists' out there, they're quite rare and as completely unhinged as misogynists in general.

In general there is a scattergraph of abilities and most people are somewhere in the middle--any gendered skill set has lots of chance of being socially trained as much as it is 'innate' in the gender and until such time as babies aren't immediately burdened with gender expectations from birth onward is impossible to tell who is better at what.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26299
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Men are, on the whole, way better at inseminating a woman outside of a lab setting than women are at the task. Of course, the same is also true for being inseminated, except with the genders flipped.

Outside of that, I'm not sure if there are tasks that men are better suited for than women, biologically speaking. Writing their names in the snow without moving their feet, maybe? Is that a task?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:02 pm UTC

I don't know, but I have been practicing!
I can now do my initials.
I have poor penmanship
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

The concept being that any human of sufficient size is capable of bull rushing a quarterback. However, finding a large population of women of that size is difficult. Statistics, more than abilities, is the limiting factor in most inter-gender disparities. I doubt you'll find more than a handful (comparatively) of women who would make phenomenal 3-4 DTs in the NFL. So, you could draw from there that there is less likelyhood of women being "good" at that position than there is of men being "good" at that position. Yes?
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:08 pm UTC

I'm not personally arguing against statistics--if something requires an immense physical strength, statistically, most men are physically stronger than most women--but there are outliers in both directions.

The issue is when this sort of comparison gets used to say things like "so obviously men are better engineers."
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26542
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:21 pm UTC

Women are also better at carrying pregnancies to term and nursing infants than men are.

And for things where there is a statistical difference in $trait, it's more effective (and less sexist) to judge things based on $trait directly, rather than some bad proxy for that trait, like what gender the person is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:26 pm UTC

Which is what I was saying. There is truth in the statement that men make better 3-4 DTs, but only because of the traits involved. However, saying that we need stronger humans to hit the gap and take out the left tackle and guard on a double team is more accurate, because if a strong enough woman, with great balance, speed, and a desire to harm the prissy little git with the hand egg, can be found then your team is going to be better as long as she's the strongest, most balanced, speediest, aggressive one on the field.

So it is a matter of intent behind the statement, rather than the statement's veracity.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I'm not personally arguing against statistics--if something requires an immense physical strength, statistically, most men are physically stronger than most women--but there are outliers in both directions.

The issue is when this sort of comparison gets used to say things like "so obviously men are better engineers."


It's not statistical, it's biological. Testosterone aids in developing muscles. Men have higher levels of testosterone then women, Because of this, it is easier for men to develop their muscles.

The brains of men and women are also different. Now, I can't tell you what these differences mean as I am not an expert; you can do the research yourself to see the exact differences and what they mean (I don't really care that much). However, it is reasonable to suggest that these differences give men advantages in some areas, and women advantages in others.

This does not mean that women can't excel in some of the areas men have an advantage, and men can't excel in some of the areas women have an advantage. It does not mean that there will necessarily be a huge split where 99% of men are good at something that only 1% of women are good at. It just means that the trend in these areas will favor one sex or the other because of these biological differences.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:49 pm UTC

Thesh, the problem is that usually when someone starts arguing biological differences, it goes in the direction of "so lower salaries/discrimination/stereotypes are justified."

Because there are outliers in all of these statistic and biological differences. First, get everybody to a place where we can say, "judging based on gender alone is stupid," or, if you like, "all humans are created equal and have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (because it's amazing how this basic principle is so difficult to comprehend for some) - then we can study biology without falling into generalization traps. And all the other traps.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26299
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:52 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The brains of men and women are also different. Now, I can't tell you what these differences mean as I am not an expert; you can do the research yourself to see the exact differences and what they mean (I don't really care that much). However, it is reasonable to suggest that these differences give men advantages in some areas, and women advantages in others.
Man, we don't understand the human brain well enough to figure out why, when looking at identical twins, one is better at math and the other is better at remembering dates and historic events. I do not agree that we can reasonably suggest that these differences give men advantages in some areas - we don't understand it well enough to know what the hell is going on, so we can't figure out why a certain area needs to be larger in men than in women, or larger in women than in men, or located in a slightly different place or whatever else is different.

It's.. also not universally different.* Make of that what you will. I mean, last bunch of lesbians I met were pretty physically different than the average man, based on my experience in observing other men. And yet, apparently their brains are more like mine because they like chicks.

So clearly, we can reasonably assume the brain differences are based not on ability to do tasks or controlling of biological functions, but instead on how much you like looking at tits.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:56 pm UTC

I am not clicking on that last Youtube link.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26299
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:59 pm UTC

Tim Minchin - Confessions in Three Movements
Spoiler:
1. Feminism

I believe that women have the right to walk the streets at night
And not be afraid for their lives
I believe that women have the right to choose what happens to her body
Without suffering the judgement of the conservative right

And I believe that women have the right to wear the clothes they like
Without being treated like dirt
And I believe we men are pathetic how we seem to judge aesthetic
As the measure of a woman's worth
I'm ashamed on behalf of my sex for making women feel like objects

Fuck I love boobs though, I just really love them
Fuck I love boobs though, I just wanna rub them
They're just so jooby, they make me feel groovy
I would rather watch boobs than a movie
Be doop be doo. I just really like boobs.


2. Poverty (altruism)

I believe people are entitled to basic human rights
Whether they are rich or their poor
I believe a world where no children are starving
Is a world worth fighting for

And I try to remind myself, even when I'm struggling
How incredibly lucky I am
And I don't think it's ok that the luxuries I crave
Should come at the expense of my fellow man

I'm sure I could give a little more
To alleviate the suffering of the poor.

Fuck I love boobs though.
I just really love them
I don't really mind if I am behind
Below or above them.

They're just so jubbly
They make me feel lovely
I'd rather own boobs than a pub
Be doop be doop doop doo doo doo
I really love boobs.



3. Enviromentalism

I believe the that planet we live in is a living organism
And we must treat her carefully
I don't think we can assume we can just go on consuming
Her resources indefinitely.

The earth's not a bottomless pit
And we can all do our little bit.

Fuck I love boobs though
I just really care for 'em
They're equally fun when they're aged 21
Or octogenarian.

They're just so flappy
They make me feel happy
I'd rather eat boobs than a bap
Be doop be doo
I just really love boobs.


Evolutionary theory says bosoms are buttock-like protrusions
Designed to tempt men in situations when
They can't get a glimpse of your bum
I find such hypotheses dumb, it's like the one that says
Lipstick is for making your lips look more
Like the lips of a happy vagina
Since they said that I can't look my great aunt in the eye
Why'd they have to say that, oh why?

From that first little suck of colostrum
To the grope of the the nurse in the old people's hostel
We're just fucking monkeys in shoes
And I
Will always love boobs.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:01 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Thesh, the problem is that usually when someone starts arguing biological differences, it goes in the direction of "so lower salaries/discrimination/stereotypes are justified."


And it shouldn't. I have seen men do really shitty at their jobs, and get promoted. I have seen women who did much better at their jobs, but couldn't even get cost of living raises. This I disagree with entirely. Your job should be based entirely on your skill, and gender should not be taken into account in that case.

Yes, human rights are universal, and jobs and pay should be based on the qualifications of the individual. I just believe it is foolish to act like the only difference between men and women is physical strength and reproductive roles.

SecondTalon wrote:
Thesh wrote:The brains of men and women are also different. Now, I can't tell you what these differences mean as I am not an expert; you can do the research yourself to see the exact differences and what they mean (I don't really care that much). However, it is reasonable to suggest that these differences give men advantages in some areas, and women advantages in others.
Man, we don't understand the human brain well enough to figure out why, when looking at identical twins, one is better at math and the other is better at remembering dates and historic events. I do not agree that we can reasonably suggest that these differences give men advantages in some areas - we don't understand it well enough to know what the hell is going on, so we can't figure out why a certain area needs to be larger in men than in women, or larger in women than in men, or located in a slightly different place or whatever else is different.

It's.. also not universally different.* Make of that what you will. I mean, last bunch of lesbians I met were pretty physically different than the average man, based on my experience in observing other men. And yet, apparently their brains are more like mine because they like chicks.

So clearly, we can reasonably assume the brain differences are based not on ability to do tasks or controlling of biological functions, but instead on how much you like looking at tits.


I'll accept that, I just think people should at least be open to the possibility.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I just believe it is foolish to act like the only difference between men and women is physical strength and reproductive roles.

Okay, so we largely agree on the general things. But why this last caveat? Why "be open about the possibility"? Do you have a reason for this beyond incredulity or gut intuition?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

We really all should be open to the idea of watching boobies. Really should.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26542
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:06 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Why "be open about the possibility"?
Perhaps because, just as we don't know enough about the brain to say for sure that particular differences are the result of sex, we also don't know enough about the brain to say for sure that they aren't?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26299
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:10 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I'll accept that, I just think people should at least be open to the possibility.
Sure, but how much of it is biological (Remember, Lesbian and Straight Male brains are similar, even though they're being bathed in different hormonal mixtures) and how much of it is environmental - the way one is raised and treated by the society in which one lives?

Of course, how much of that question is even testable?
podbaydoor wrote:
Thesh wrote:I just believe it is foolish to act like the only difference between men and women is physical strength and reproductive roles.
Okay, so we largely agree on the general things. But why this last caveat? Why "be open about the possibility"? Do you have a reason for this beyond incredulity or gut intuition?
I suppose it depends on what "be open about the possibility" means. I'm open to it the same way I'm open to most everything - given sufficient evidence from a scientific body or at least someone who's capable of creating an experimental series that does the whole control-variable thing and as far as they or I can tell removes any outside influences beyond the thing being tested, I'll be more than happy to change my opinion in the face of the new evidence.

Until then, operating on what evidence I do have, I cannot accept a claim that beyond physical appearance and structure, hormonal levels and reproductive roles, there is an inherit difference between men and women based on a biological reason. There's gobs of reasons based on society and social roles, sure. And a lot of those social roles are fucked up and should be changed. But yeah, I've yet to see any sort of compelling evidence that Men are just inherently better at chemistry.
Last edited by SecondTalon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:11 pm UTC

I'd say it's fair to be open to the possibility as long as you don't use it to judge what people of specific genders 'should' be doing in the meantime.

That's where I see the real disconnect. "We haven't proven it yet, but I'm completely positive women are good at X activity and men are good at Y activity because look at how well they're doing it right now--this is how it's always been done etc."
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:14 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Okay, so we largely agree on the general things. But why this last caveat? Why "be open about the possibility"? Do you have a reason for this beyond incredulity or gut intuition?


I can't tell you what it is exactly, but in my social interactions I have found that men and women tend to be different in personality. This could be entirely social, but this has been the case in the personalities of animals as well. For example:

http://www.howtodothings.com/pets-and-a ... -dogs.html

Does this necessarily translate to skills? No. Do we really gain anything as a society from acknowledging these difference? I'm honestly not sure. Could ignorant people use this as ammunition to say that women shouldn't have the same rights as men? Yes.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

Women shouldn't have the same rights as men.

I seriously doubt that women need an annual testicular exam.

Men really do not need their ovaries checked.

Humans, however, should have breast exams bi-annnnnnnnually.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:20 pm UTC

Like many a generalization, this one is not some version of proof. I looked through and even with my limited experience with dogs this article has shown itself to be false.

Yeah, there has been some discussion about how treating 2 people the exact same as each other is not the same as equality.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:28 pm UTC

In terms of day to day interaction, what difference does it make whether differences are social or biological? Seems like having biological trends with a few outliers or social trends with a few outliers produces pretty much the exact same thing in the short term. The only difference seems to be political, or the notion that biology somehow determines how things are "supposed" to be, which is stupid.

Even in the political sense, I don't see how it being biological should make a huge difference. Biologically, I am almost blind, but fortunately the invention of glasses has broken me out of where nature would leave me. So if science ever did show certain disadvantages normally associated with each sex, it should just be an opportunity to overcome those disadvantages, just as we try to overcome the obvious social ones that exist now.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:29 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Like many a generalization, this one is not some version of proof. I looked through and even with my limited experience with dogs this article has shown itself to be false.


Granted, I have only owned 4 dogs: two male, and two female. But I felt the article fits my experience. Of course there are always outliers in any case.

setzer777 wrote:In terms of day to day interaction, what difference does it make whether differences are social or biological? Seems like having biological trends with a few outliers or social trends with a few outliers produces pretty much the exact same thing in the short term. The only difference seems to be political, or the notion that biology somehow determines how things are "supposed" to be, which is stupid.

Even in the political sense, I don't see how it being biological should make a huge difference. Biologically, I am almost blind, but fortunately the invention of glasses has broken me out of where nature would leave me. So if science ever did show certain disadvantages normally associated with each sex, it should just be an opportunity to overcome those disadvantages, just as we try to overcome the obvious social ones that exist now.


I guess the real question is, whether the differences are social or biological, is it healthy to ignore that the difference between men and women, in general, is more than just physical?
Last edited by Thesh on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Shivahn » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:30 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Thesh wrote:I'll accept that, I just think people should at least be open to the possibility.
Sure, but how much of it is biological (Remember, Lesbian and Straight Male brains are similar, even though they're being bathed in different hormonal mixtures) and how much of it is environmental - the way one is raised and treated by the society in which one lives?

Of course, how much of that question is even testable?


This is really pretty relevant.

There's no evidence that how you're raised influences how much testosterone you produce. I'm pretty sure raising a boy as a girl isn't going to reverse-differentiate his testes into ovarian tissue. And vice versa.

Whereas the brain is crazy plastic and if you cut out half of someone's visual cortex when they're young enough it'll just remap the remaining cortex. And if someone loses an arm, the somatosensory cortex in the regions around it will creep into the now-unused territory.

In short, differences in the brain, unlike differences in gonads, could plausibly be entirely societally conditioned, so we should be very hesitant to accept either explanation as truth.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:43 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
sophyturtle wrote:Like many a generalization, this one is not some version of proof. I looked through and even with my limited experience with dogs this article has shown itself to be false.
Granted, I have only owned 4 dogs: two male, and two female. But I felt the article fits my experience. Of course there are always outliers in any case.
Which is part of my point. I have never had a dog that fight those descriptions (female and male not having any overlap) or had an experience with a dog like this despite growing up with dogs, having family members that are dog people and own dogs, working in a veterinary hospital, or having friends with dogs. Mostly, because personality is much more complicated than that. Hugely. You cannot approach a dog going 'it is a bitch so it will be like this'. And this is for a dog.

As someone who has studied sex/psychology/sociology rigorously since the late 1990's it is frustrating to see this stuff.

Someone might read that link, and believe it. Now when they interact with a bitch who is not affectionate they will be all 'well, she is a bitch' and ignore the actual reason (previous abuse/trust issues/simply not liking you).

Gender is not simple. Sex is not simple. Pretending it is a tidy dichotomy in any way is very annoying. It is easy to look at research and use it to back you up. It is hard to actually discover anything. And these stagnant social constructs retard our understanding.

On a personal note: I find them insulting. Because according to most of those generalizations I am not real, or not a real woman. And seriously, fuck you for saying I am any less woman because I am not the stereotype our culture is drilling into people's heads from pre-birth ("is it a boy or a girl?!? let me buy you gender specific everything!!")
grumble
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Thresh wrote:
setzer777 wrote:In terms of day to day interaction, what difference does it make whether differences are social or biological? Seems like having biological trends with a few outliers or social trends with a few outliers produces pretty much the exact same thing in the short term. The only difference seems to be political, or the notion that biology somehow determines how things are "supposed" to be, which is stupid.

Even in the political sense, I don't see how it being biological should make a huge difference. Biologically, I am almost blind, but fortunately the invention of glasses has broken me out of where nature would leave me. So if science ever did show certain disadvantages normally associated with each sex, it should just be an opportunity to overcome those disadvantages, just as we try to overcome the obvious social ones that exist now.


I guess the real question is, whether the differences are social or biological, is it healthy to ignore that the difference between men and women, in general, is more than just physical?


I don't think we should ignore differences. If boys on average struggle with English, we should take extra effort to bring them up to speed, likewise with girls and math (replace with any generalization of your choosing). This should be done regardless of the source of these differences. The important thing is that responses are aimed towards giving everyone the most opportunities possible.
Last edited by setzer777 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:45 pm UTC

I buy kelly green everything when people have children.

Mainly because I think all children look good in Kelly green.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Which is part of my point. I have never had a dog that fight those descriptions (female and male not having any overlap) or had an experience with a dog like this despite growing up with dogs, having family members that are dog people and own dogs, working in a veterinary hospital, or having friends with dogs. Mostly, because personality is much more complicated than that. Hugely. You cannot approach a dog going 'it is a bitch so it will be like this'. And this is for a dog.

As someone who has studied sex/psychology/sociology rigorously since the late 1990's it is frustrating to see this stuff.

Someone might read that link, and believe it. Now when they interact with a bitch who is not affectionate they will be all 'well, she is a bitch' and ignore the actual reason (previous abuse/trust issues/simply not liking you).

Gender is not simple. Sex is not simple. Pretending it is a tidy dichotomy in any way is very annoying. It is easy to look at research and use it to back you up. It is hard to actually discover anything. And these stagnant social constructs retard our understanding.

On a personal note: I find them insulting. Because according to most of those generalizations I am not real, or not a real woman. And seriously, fuck you for saying I am any less woman because I am not the stereotype our culture is drilling into people's heads from pre-birth ("is it a boy or a girl?!? let me buy you gender specific everything!!")
grumble


I'm not a big fan of the female stereotype of a woman should stay at home, cooking and cleaning for her man, and the man should work to support his wife and kids either. I would much prefer for the woman to work, and then come home and cook and clean for me, while I spend the day with my mistress.

And of course personalities are more complicated than sex. I can't think of any two people who I could say has the exact same personality, and I apologize if I came off as suggesting it was black and white; that was not my intention.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
semicharmed
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby semicharmed » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:09 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:I buy kelly green everything when people have children.

Mainly because I think all children look good in Kelly green.


Not kelly green! Anything but kelly green*!
*I'm one of those people who, when I wear anything kelly green-ish, looks like they're about to hurl.

I'm a book giver myself, although the next baby I have to buy gifts for are getting knit leggings with a monster on the bum. Like these (google Docs download link, FYI). Or, alternatively, a one-eyed monster hat, complete with horns. Because babies of all kinds need more knit monster-themed things in their lives. Also, because since I stumbled across those patterns, I've been dying to make them.

Because knitting is math, but the fun kind that becomes awesome things when the numbers work out right. The designing is math, and some mechanics, and the knitting is mechanical once I know my pattern by feel. And that, right there, is why I'm with sophy, here:
[quote=sophyturtle]On a personal note: I find them insulting. Because according to most of those generalizations I am not real, or not a real woman. And seriously, fuck you for saying I am any less woman because I am not the stereotype our culture is drilling into people's heads from pre-birth ("is it a boy or a girl?!? let me buy you gender specific everything!!")[/quote]

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:16 pm UTC

I used to play guitar for my "kid's kids" when I'd babysit for them during my military time. Soothing lullabies, Diablo soundtrack style, and a shirt that smelled like mommy or daddy, they'd be out before the parents were gone. There are all sorts of gifts you can give parents. I just liked the Kelly green.

The biggest inequality that pisses me off is the not having paternity leave. That sucks the monkey.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Kewangji » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:47 pm UTC

It is extremely hard to explain to some people that feminism is an apt name. It's really heartbreaking and headdesking to hear people say 'I can't get behind feminism because it says femi- instead of something else, and it's obviously misandrist because of that'.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

uncommon knowledge
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:18 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby uncommon knowledge » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:05 am UTC

In the U.S. (admittedly probably a lot more than most other places),
societal & cultural power (of which U.S. women have no shortage)
often trumps politics. Meanwhile, in serving the public, politicians
& various business leaders (even if they're male) usually tend
to prioritize women's needs out of fear of being politically incorrect.
I suspect some women simply won't be satisfied, though, until all men
are either made uniformly, unconditionally subservient to women
or else are wiped off the face of the earth.

User was warned for this post. -Lanicita

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby mochafairy » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:57 am UTC

uncommon knowledge wrote:In the U.S. (admittedly probably a lot more than most other places),
societal & cultural power (of which U.S. women have no shortage)
often trumps politics. Meanwhile, in serving the public, politicians
& various business leaders (even if they're male) usually tend
to prioritize women's needs out of fear of being politically incorrect.
I suspect some women simply won't be satisfied, though, until all men
are either made uniformly, unconditionally subservient to women
or else are wiped off the face of the earth.


Ummm...what?
I have societal and cultural power of the same magnitude as my male peers? Males prioritize my needs out of fear of not being PC? This is total news to me! I had no idea that I didn't have to make my "issues" sexy in order to get attention or have them taken seriously. I had no idea that counting things like dometic violence as a pre-existing condition, or forgetting about preventative care for women until the last minute, or being sexually harassed or being raped and being told it's a compliment...I had no idea this was society's way of taking into account my personal well being because they're afraid of not being "PC".
I had no idea that telling women it's their job to prevent people from attacking them was women having power. I had no idea that being a toy for the opposite gender is a bad thing, so long as you're a girl's toy and you're a boy.

I suggest you read some literature, I suggest here, here, and maybe here.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26542
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Troll, troll troll troll troll? Troll troll troll. Troll troll (troll troll) troll. Troll troll troll troll, troll troll troll, troll troll troll troll.

Troll.
Troll.
Troll.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Dark567 » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:47 am UTC

Today in the office, I overheard a conversation between two of my not-really-my-coworkers, but work at the same company as me. A mother was discussing with someone else her 6-12 year old daughter(I am guessing on the age based of her description, theoretically it could be wider I guess). This mother was upset that her daughter didn't like the color pink, she like dark colors like blue and black; refused to wear skirts and dress, preferring to always wear pants; and was taking karate classes, instead of dance or cheerleading or something else that I had stopped listening too. I was a little bit floored by how much this mother was trying reinforce stereotypes on her daughter(unfortunately by floored, I mean hunkered down in my cube attempting to distract myself with work). Of course everyone else was agreeing with her too....

I also read this today which I thought was semi-relevant to the discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/27 ... ?ref=women
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Rilian » Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:straw-feminist tactics

Heh. That's funny. I like it.
And I'm -2.

User avatar
semicharmed
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby semicharmed » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Oregonaut wrote:I used to play guitar for my "kid's kids" when I'd babysit for them during my military time. Soothing lullabies, Diablo soundtrack style, and a shirt that smelled like mommy or daddy, they'd be out before the parents were gone. There are all sorts of gifts you can give parents. I just liked the Kelly green.

The biggest inequality that pisses me off is the not having paternity leave. That sucks the monkey.


Some places in the US do give parental leave that can be taken by either parent, depending on who's working at the company. I know for sure my SO's residency program offers paternity leave, although I'm not sure if there's a difference between the amount of paternity and maternity leave offered. His program is pretty well-known, though, for being a super residency to take if you plan on having children while a resident.

And I was just teasing about the kelly green thing, although it is frustrating that colours, especially for baby clothes, have become so associated with gender.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby bigglesworth » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 am UTC

Oh, and by the way, pastel coloured things shouldn't be given to babies (unless you want them to pay no attention to them).
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests