Sexism: How Far Should is Too Far?

Originally posted by King Kandy
DDM, nobody uses the words ***** and pussy as insults in reference to the animals... I can't believe you're even trying to argue that. It should be plain obvious using these words in conversation that they're both references to supposed female behavior ("bitchy"/whiny for the first and timid/weak for the second).

I disagree. But I've already outlined why.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm interested in these supposed big genetic differences in male/female brains... inimalist says there are almost no differences and i'm usually inclined to take his word on these issues.

K. I've already posted on it, however. And why would I disagree when the very article I posted talks about the "software" being the difference...meaning, neuroplasticity could alter what we measure in brain activity (which inimalist and I have discussed before, about 2 and half years ago.)

Also: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web1/a1pennington.html

Also, you can look up the biological differences between males and females.

Androgoen receptors and their rate of type occurance.

Hormone levels.

Genetics.

Bone density.

Muscle density.

Etc.

Sexual asymmetry is not my original idea, btw.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's DDM speak.

It is.

It should read: "Sexism: How Far is Too Far?

It used to say: "Sexism: How Far Should We Go?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem I see is that one of the traits in etc is: "mindless subservience to men."

YOU SEXIST! 😆

You mean this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

This was your only source posted in this thread (you may have posted more in other threads?) and it doesn't provide evidence for any of the actual common views on how men and women differ... just that there are brain differences of unknown effect on personality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You mean this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/060419_brain_wiring.html

This was your only source posted in this thread (you may have posted more in other threads?) and it doesn't provide evidence for any of the actual common views on how men and women differ... just that there are brain differences of unknown effect on personality.

Reread my post because I edited it.

Also, please quote me where I said that the brains are exactly the same. Additionally, quote me where I said the brains are always different (for gender, alone). If you want me to make an argument for something I have not supported, I can do so, but you must pay me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't think the modern day definition of "girly" includes "can not lead", or "is not aggressive".

Ditto. People thinks those are inclusive traits, but they are not. In fact, these days, in politics at least, women have to be womanly to get elected. You have to be "pretty."

Same with men: you have to be "handsome."

So, wait...is it POSSIBLE that people vote for people that are attractive? Yup. In fact, I've posted on that, too...cited a source and everything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is not, I assume he initially wanted to call the thread "How far should be too far" but then decided to call it "How far is too far" and the "should" stayed. Or the other way around, though less likely, perhaps.

Just saw this. Bravo: I hope my extra "man" left in a previous post doesn't get used against me, as well. lol

what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)

Originally posted by Sancty
I don't think so...

I thought "girly girl" was used to describe girls who like "girly" things or behave in a "girly" way.
Liking the colour pink, dresses, make-up.. Likes to gossip or is "bitchy", is weak, doesn't like to get dirty, likes shopping..
Stereotypical "girl" things.

I mean someone who had the traits you described could still be a "tomboy". It's not like people choose whether or not to have curves, smooth hands and full lips mmm

It's my own personal definition which counts the aboslute most when discussing what I think that means to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact, the power the insult has comes from the lower regard for women and stereotypes associated with them. It's stupid, too, there's a lot of men who can't fight for shit, and there's women who could whoop everyone here's asses (as dadudemon pointed out about 3 years ago)

Indeed.

But let's try replace those insults with something else:

"You cry like a body-builderin coming off a cycle."

It just...doesn't...have sting. lol

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really, imo, because anything can be an insult to anyone. I don't see a statement like "You fight like a woman", as an insult to women, so much as a type of social commentary on how women typically are. Women are generally physically weaker, more fragile, have less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that a woman is generally not as affective at fighting as a man would be. Ergo, if I'm fighting with someone and they say "you fight like a woman", it's more of an insult to me, really, because what he's saying is that the way that I'm displaying qualities that are commonly shown by women (that quality being ineffective in a fight)

I agree.

You could, however, change your insult to:

"You fight like a person that generally physically weaker, more fragile, has less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that you are not as affective at fighting as a person with better fighting traits, would be."

It just doesn't roll of the tongue, you know?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think we should strive for gender neutrality in all things. Leave no stone unturned if there's a societal divide we can root out.

But that would make sexual attraction completely unphysical and completely based on personality. 😠

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal.

Yup: they should get vasectomies, if they want them. EQUALITY! 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. I've already posted on it, however. And why would I disagree when the very article I posted talks about the "software" being the difference...meaning, neuroplasticity could alter what we measure in brain activity (which inimalist and I have discussed before, about 2 and half years ago.)

Also: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web1/a1pennington.html

Also, you can look up the biological differences between males and females.

Androgoen receptors and their rate of type occurance.

Hormone levels.

Genetics.

Bone density.

Muscle density.

Etc.

Sexual asymmetry is not my original idea, btw.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Right, that's what I was thinking as well. That's why I was specifically asking if there were any brain differences directly traceable to genetic differences.

the closest thing I can think of would be something like language, which is lateralized to the left (mainly, though...) in men, but more distributed over both hemispheres in women.

Although there are these differences, after about age 8-10, there are no behavioural differences in language abilities between men and women.

There are probably some differences, however the idea that these differences are going to conform to the expectations our culture has about gender roles is silly, and imho, the differences that might exist will be more like what is found with language. While there may be some different wiring, behaviourly, we will be quite the same.

Originally posted by inimalist
what is your point on the brains though?

the differences discussed in that press release could easily come from developmental differences in how we treat boys and girls, and Stephen J Gould (or any biologist) would have those researchers asses for the "just so" stories they are inventing to fit their data.

That type of evolutionary appeal is rampant in psychology right now, and is entirely unwaranted in this case.

Like, if all you are saying is that they are different, well ya, they are different because society treats them differently, not because of any biological predisposition in the brain (at least none that can be definatively shown, and there are studies that suggest the exact opposite)

Glad we agree. But my point was "we are different." I did not seek to ignorantly illustrate the reasons (because I would be ignorant of the reasons), just to point out that we are different.

Can you prove that the neurological differences are solely environmental? Or are they partly biological?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I know there are obvious differences in biology (like I said earlier, it can be so obvious as 'one has a penis'😉. That's not what i'm asking. I asked specifically, are there brain differences, and are these brain differences directly linked to genetics? Like inimalist said, brain development to adulthood is a result of more than base biological differences.

I cannot support an argument I did not make. I honestly do not know if it is purely environmental, at this point. I would like to know that, myself. Logic says it would be a combination but, as I have pointed out before, plasticity would take a crap on those results.

huh, did not see that coming... 😛

Of course, due to society there are many differences in how men and women act and are treated. Personally, I think we should pursue cultural change to try and eliminate these differences to as large an extent as possible.

Originally posted by inimalist
the closest thing I can think of would be something like language, which is lateralized to the left (mainly, though...) in men, but more distributed over both hemispheres in women.

Although there are these differences, after about age 8-10, there are no behavioural differences in language abilities between men and women.

There are probably some differences, however the idea that these differences are going to conform to the expectations our culture has about gender roles is silly, and imho, the differences that might exist will be more like what is found with language. While there may be some different wiring, behaviourly, we will be quite the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Talk about sexism, here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad we agree. But my point was "we are different."

No, the clear implication of your point was far more than that- it was that we are different in ways that cannot be helped and that this should be celebrated. If you are now admitting the possibility that these differences are not hard wired that changes everything as it means those differences can be changed and your whole approach of "fact: we are different" becomes irrelevant due to the simple retort of "we don't have to be."

And from there it can be said that the environmental differences may be being foisted upon women by a male dominated society, this being the root of such sexism. And therefore it is that sexism you would be trying to celebrate. This takes us back to bardock's original point that you are arbitrarily selecting traits and saying they are positive traits on women and negative ones on males. If there is no hard-wired justification for that, this is a. ignorant and b. outright sexism. It then becomes sinister when you consider the possibility that the male-dominated society is instilling these traits that they would see as negative on each other (as men) onto women and thinking that on women, these otherwise negative traits are good things- because the only reason for that, lacking any actual underlying biological justification, is that they enjoy women having negative traits.

(This may well also undermine your earlier idea that it is odd to say that there is something other than biology making you attracted to what we call feminine traits. It can be attacked on two ends- first, that what you find attractive might be more to do with culture than biology, and secondly, as mentioned, that those traits may also be more to do with culture than biology).

Of course, I'll add my voice to those who have only contempt for your attempts to describe those insults as referring to animals. That poisoned the small shreds of credibility your argument still had. Your view that submissiveness is incompatible with intelligence is poor as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, the clear implication of your point was far more than that- it was that we are different in ways that cannot be helped and that this should be celebrated. If you are now admitting the possibility that these differences are not hard wired that changes everything as it means those differences can be changed and your whole approach of "fact: we are different" becomes irrelevant due to the simple retort of "we don't have to be."

And from there it can be said that the environmental differences may be being foisted upon women by a male dominated society, this being the root of such sexism. And therefore it is that sexism you would be trying to celebrate. This takes us back to bardock's original point that you are arbitrarily selecting traits and saying they are positive traits on women and negative ones on males. If there is no hard-wired justification for that, this is a. ignorant and b. outright sexism. It then becomes sinister when you consider the possibility that the male-dominated society is instilling these traits that they would see as negative on each other (as men) onto women and thinking that on women, these otherwise negative traits are good things- because the only reason for that, lacking any actual underlying biological justification, is that they enjoy women having negative traits.

(This may well also undermine your earlier idea that it is odd to say that there is something other than biology making you attracted to what we call feminine traits. It can be attacked on two ends- first, that what you find attractive might be more to do with culture than biology, and secondly, as mentioned, that those traits may also be more to do with culture than biology).

Of course, I'll add my voice to those who have only contempt for your attempts to describe those insults as referring to animals. That poisoned the small shreds of credibility your argument still had. Your view that submissiveness is incompatible with intelligence is poor as well.

You cannot decide what the intentions of my points were or were not.

We are different biologically. Our brains are even different.

However, this is as far as I can take it. I've direclty indicated that I do not know if the evironment is completely or partly responsible for that neurological difference.

Considering I've argue for the plasticity of the human brain, before, your reply is even further off target.

The rest of your points have been addressed, already.

Edit - read the middle of your post. You ask if there is no hard-wired mechanism for those biological traits as completey environmentally influenced. There is. Else I wouldn't have spoken on that. Your a) and b) options do not apply.

You appear to be unnecessarily hostile, as well. I could say that you are "obviously ignorant of sexology and human biology", but that would be rude and unnecessary on my part. All that I ask is that you tone down the hostility a bit. I'm okay with arguing about this stuff as much as you want but I won't discuss things with you if you cannot refrain for insults.

I'm old school and I think men should protect their woman rather than let their woman protect them. That could be considered sexist but I don't really care. I've never seen or heard of a woman beating a man to death with her bare hands. If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds. I do feel that women deserve equal rights as men and should be as much respected as any man. I think it's unrealistic to act as though they're equals though because there are distinct physical/mental differences because of the different hormones.

If the ship is sinking I still feel women and children should be first to get off and if the captain is a woman let her go down with the ship, giving her the same respect you would give a male captain. I think all humans should be treated as equals considering the amount of respect that you show them. Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men. Diamonds and gravel aren't equals just because they're both rocks.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I've never seen or heard of a woman beating a man to death with her bare hands.

Bare hands haven't been the chosen method of killing people for twenty thousand years.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If two men want to fight each other I say let them. If an average man and an average woman want to fight I think someone should intervene because I don't see that as them fighting on equal grounds.

I don't get this statement. Wouldn't you also stop twp men trying to kill each other or two women? And why bring up averages? (after all if your there watching you can see for yourself who's winning)

Originally posted by The MISTER
Honestly though women are more precious and beautiful than men.

Bull.

why? do you know any particularly beautiful men? 😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bare hands haven't been the chosen method of killing people for twenty thousand years.

I don't get this statement. Wouldn't you also stop twp men trying to kill each other or two women? And why bring up averages? (after all if your there watching you can see for yourself who's winning)

Bull.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cigarette-beating,0,7963479.story

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What? Women are things.

Originally posted by The MISTER
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cigarette-beating,0,7963479.story

So?

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/harvey-homicide-douglas-collins-shooting-domestic.html