next »

[Cow]

It fucking cunts like dragonmaw who fail to ACTUALLY FUCKING READ MY FUCKING POSTS which make pursuing this argument worthless.

Nope I think his assessment was pretty accurate.

[Dragonmaw]

"Read my posts!!!"

The last cry of a man who has been owned too hard.

Edit:

<@eva> can someone just tel 114113 to stop mentioning me thnx
<@eva> 1413 i cant find a post wher he doesnt mention my name post-ban jesus
<@eva> mite as wel put my name in his sig

[im9today]

i want you all to know that i am weighting every side of this argument very carefully. this is not something to be taken lightly

[Dragonmaw]

I think what Paul was trying to reference is that men, by product of sexual dimorphism, are better suited to certain physical tasks than women are.

Ah, I see. I would still argue that there are not so many of these task as would make that much of a difference on the whole of jobs involving manual labor. The only one that really comes to mind is archery, where one's breasts get in the way if you're not careful.

Likewise, his addendum is that psychological tasks don't have anything to do with actual gender and everything to do with societal gender norms. Much like how most nurses are female, even though it's not a task that men struggle doing. Or how most programmers are men, even though the first real programmer (Ada) and a large chunk of early programmers were female. Or how gaming is extremely male-centric.

If that is what he said, then I agree with that.

A large number of physical tasks (like factory operation) have become mostly automated, removing a lot of the physiological differences. There are still a few jobs that men are better suited for than women and vice versa, though. I do like that the increased usage of robots and such is bridging the physical gap between men and women in terms of work. Now we just have to break the societal gap and then anyone can get any job!

[Gimym TILBERT]

The physical gap is a bit silly because there is almost as any difference between individual than there is between gender. Take the archery example: what about flat chested women? Constitution is not constant with gender. And constitution shape almost as much social expectation than gender.

[_Madk]

It fucking cunts like dragonmaw who fail to ACTUALLY FUCKING READ MY FUCKING POSTS which make pursuing this argument worthless.

It fucking cunts like dragonmaw

fucking cunts

cunts


 




As for the physiology bit, I'd like to chip in that hormones really do have a substantial difference in general body structure. Generally, those women who have the upper body strength of the average man are so because they've got as much testosterone in them as the average man.

[DavidCaruso]

Re: equality of genders (or people in general), gender roles being an unnecessary social construct, etc.

Biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing. In his brilliant refutation of the women's liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are: (1) "the distinctive female experience of maternity" including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an "intimate and integral connection with the child . . . associated with physiological effects and strong emotions"; (2) "the hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes"; (3) "the varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls"; and (4) "the psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities," in particular the "fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles" as biologically determined in men and women respectively...

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence "that it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance.... For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls – and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well – and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls...will find difficult to overcome." Dr. Maccoby adds that "if you try to divide child training among males and females, we might find out that females need to do it and males don't."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

Essentially, what it means is that there are in fact deep-standing biological differences between the genders, hence why the same cultural and social roles for each gender all appeared worldwide in a number of different cultures, completely independently of each other (as did many other "social constructs").

The "social constructs" wouldn't place most men and women in a bad situation either, since after all their "roles" are both biologically and socially rooted, so they'd logically be predisposed to enjoy them. But there are more manly women and more womanly men (both in the physical and mental sense) - the problem is when these groups, which by definition are a minority, generalize their own frustrations and claim to represent all women or all men, and that they want rights and powers for the entire group (whereas really they only want it for people like themselves - the others would be perfectly happy as normal). As I see it it's basically trying to turn one gender into another against their own will, but we need both, as they always were and currently are, to survive (at least, until artificial birth technology get developed and mass-produced - I have as much idea what will happen then as anyone).

[Jrsquee]

You simultaneously defend cunt, an "inherently misogynistic word," as just being "your culture." You then, in the same breath, decry eva for using faggot as an "inherently homophobic word," even though she doesn't mean it as an insult to homosexuals any more than you mean cunt as an insult to women. In other words, you have such a blatant double standard, and it's fucking ridiculous.

QFT. In eva's "culture", using faggot isn't anything more than a different way of calling someone dumb. In your "culture", you use cunt in an analogous way. You're extremely close-minded if you keep trying to dichotomize this.

[Inane]

As I see it it's basically trying to turn one gender into another against their own will, but we need both, as they always were and currently are, to survive (at least, until artificial birth technology get developed and mass-produced - I have as much idea what will happen then as anyone).

Okay, David, I'll bite.
Your perception here does not match the views of your opposition. The goal is not to turn one gender in to the other, but to allow both genders to overlap as much as an individual wishes to. On the other hand, from my own perspective I can't see your own motivation, perhaps just to be contrarian and throw some Rothbard science in here.
I also question why you feel gender roles are required for the survival of our species up until artificial birth is possible, you do not need to be subservient and passive to get pregnant.
Rothbard's paper also is mostly a refutation of equality across all axes, whereas letting people do whatever they feel suited to, I'd argue, is more in line with his quote from Roger Williams (about the uniqueness of each individual) than the movements he's criticizing

[shig]

Men and Women think differently, it's obvious that sometimes men/women are going to be better than men/women at certain tasks. Yes, of course there are exceptions but IN GENERAL, one gender is going to be better than the other at doing a certain task.

So the notion of gender roles isn't always bad. If they are backed by science they could even be a good thing, preventing people from wasting time trying to do something that people of the opposite gender would easily do much better.

[Inane]

If they are backed by science they could even be a good thing, preventing people from wasting time trying to do something that people of the opposite gender would easily do much better.

[shig]

go ahead. elaborate

[jwk5]

Mmmm. The delicious taste of foot.

[RetroX]

Gender roles aren't really required for survival; it's just a natural tendency.

Think of it this way - a lot of people describe others as "left-brained" or "right-brained;" this actually has roots in science because the left half of your brain is primarily devoted to logic and the right half is primarily devoted to creativity.  (I use the word "primarily" here because it's not really that divided, but we do see common trends.)  The brain is a physical part of your body; while it does change as you develop, once it has fully developed, you're pretty much biased to be a certain way for life.  And because of this, you will naturally bias yourself toward certain interests because of how you developed.

Men and women are the same way.  Yes, you will often find cases where women act more like men and men act more like women; things are not that divided.  However, we do see trends in how people act, and generally speaking, men and women do act certain ways in general.  You could argue whether this is society's influence or not, but the point is that gender does play into how people act.

[Inane]

go ahead. elaborate

GAH, why do I even need to! You're saying we should alienate minorities within larger groups based on what larger group they belong to, oops you love math, but women are worse at math so you're SOL. Oops, you want to be a writer? Don't you know men are worse at language-based subjects? Just, what the fuck Shig. You shouldn't have to do what people similar to you are doing, especially when the similarity that's being looked at is one that you don't even get to choose yourself