next »

[shig]

you're flipping your shit over a fucking strawman


look at this

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.

im not saying things should be set on stone, im saying its correct to expect women/men to be worse on average at certain tasks or whatever.
For example, there's nothing stopping a man without hands from playing Street Fighter. And there's even Broly Legs, who is handicapped and could definitely beat me in SF... But of course any sane person should EXPECT a handicapped player to be worse than someone else with perfectly fine hands.

I meant gender roles not as in "women CANT do this EVER" but more like "I wouldn't expect to see a woman doing this".

[DavidCaruso]

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.

Well, yeah, I'm all for individual freedom, but my main point within that post was that these fringe groups and movements are claiming to represent all women while really only representing a fairly insignificant minority of them - and in the end, this limits individual freedom, since what about the people who are not a part of these fringes and actually content with the way they are?

The reason I really put in that Rothbard paper is because it basically communicated what my own views on the subject are, stated in a better way and with more support. I'm not interested in being contrarian or anything; if I wanted to do that I'd just post a huge rant topic about Braid or Cave Story sucking without having played either of the two games. That'd work a lot better than posting in women's rights topics if I wanted to just rile people up. Or maybe I could even make an 8-bit chiptune artgame RTS about women's rights.

Another reason was because I felt the paper was pretty much a direct refutation of these two posts, which were doing the whole "it's all a social construct" thing.

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.

Doesn't gender give way to natural gender roles, due to biology (which has a high influence on the development of brain structure)? I mean, like I said, the same roles pretty much arose independently in many different societies and cultures, and it doesn't seem like that'd happen unless it was somehow necessary. But either way I'll retract the "roles" part and just say different genders are necessary, which is probably more agreeable and obvious.

Also I'm not saying every single girl ever needs to be subservient and passive. That would be extremely boring because not every man is aggressive and dominating. I'm just saying that there's clear, completely natural reasons that this role is much more commonly seen and reinforced in women than in men; it's not just all a cultural social construct.

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

First of all, sup Retro

Second, if it's a natural tendency then I'd think it would be necessary for survival, since after all that's where most (if not all) of our natural tendencies seem to come from.

Don't have any objections to the rest of the post.

[RetroX]

But of course any sane person should EXPECT a handicapped player to be worse than someone else with perfectly fine hands.

I meant gender roles not as in "women CANT do this EVER" but more like "I wouldn't expect to see a woman doing this".

You could also say that people with asthma should run better than people without it.  But then, you have people with asthma that run quickly because they enjoy running and people that don't have asthma and do terribly because they hate it.

Same applies to women.  Generally, women are weaker than men.  There are still loads of women bodybuilders and female athletes.  Generally, people would take it as an insult if you walked up to them and say "WOAH, you work out?  But you're a girl!"

As the saying goes, "don't judge a book by its cover."

Really, they're just stereotypes.  And by that, I mean that there are usually a large amount of people that do conform to the description, however, a lot of people don't.

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

First of all, sup Retro

Second, if it's a natural tendency then I'd think it would be necessary for survival, since after all that's where most (if not all) of our natural tendencies seem to come from.

What I meant is that it's less relevant to survival now.

Yeah, I'm sure that back in the year -10000, the roles of men and women were really important.  Right now, less so.  Evolution takes a long time, and a drastic change in environment happening so quickly doesn't really leave room for a sudden change in our actual species.

[Inane]

Then, wait:

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.

If someone never tries something because they feel limited by their gender, how could they possibly know whether they are better at it and would enjoy it more than what they feel they have to do because of their gender. You're saying a positive aspect of gender roles is that they limit people from trying things they might not like anyway, but you're not gonna try something, hate it, and make a career out of that just because society didn't tell you not to try it in the first place. You might, however, do something along those lines because society told you that it is what you should be doing.

[shig]

just saying if you're likely to suck at doing a thing, you might as well know it

and if you know it, you might not try if you are not sure you are exceptionally good

[mirosurabu]

don't you guys know that you suck at discussion?

if so, do you really think you are exceptionally good at it?

[phubans]

[Cow]

don't you guys know that you suck at discussion?

if so, do you really think you are exceptionally good at it?

I'm curious about this too.

[Inane]

@DavidCaruso: Sorry, by contrarian I didn't mean just arguing to annoy people, more along the lines of arguing to cut the 'opposition' down to size.

and in the end, this limits individual freedom, since what about the people who are not a part of these fringes and actually content with the way they are?

The majority of a gender are unlikely to be threatened in anyway, it seems unlikely to me expectations will shift from so far in their direction now to limiting them from doing what they're doing now. There's effectively a minority of the minority that believes this is what should be happening (people like Neofeminists) but they're about as likely to influence things as, say, neonazis.

I don't really have much to reply to other than that, other than that human beings are not threatened, allowing exceptions to gender roles to flourish does not cause our population to plummet. I want for people to not be limited by stuff like this, and everything after humans started building walls to keep wild animals from gnawing on our population has been safe enough to allow people to transcend their gender roles, especially since these people will still procreate even if they're not brutish men and dainty women.

[Cow]

The Neolithic Revolution was a wonderful thing.

[Gimym TILBERT]

I was sleeping, I woke up, and read tig what's wrong with me?

BTW David caruso: How do you explain that, when given the chance to study, women perform way better on average than men (yes even in math and logic)? Society held by women are statistically more stable than those build by men. Also It is statistically easier to find men under 70 of QI than women...

Your paper is totally biased, there is more difference among people than there is between gender. Most of his finding can be explain by social pressure that apply on individual since birth (social feedback). Not only that but environment also pressure the way individual evolve, we are taller than our ancestor and live longer, we have better QI and better adaptation skills. Actually there is a trend against men as performer right now if you followed one previous link I had submit in this thread.

Ther only true difference between gender is that girl have period and babies!

[Inanimate]

I was sleeping, I woke up, and read tig what's wrong with me?

BTW David caruso: How do you explain that, when given the chance to study, women perform way better on average than men (yes even in math and logic)? Society held by women are statistically more stable than those build by men. Also It is statistically easier to find men under 70 of QI than women...

Link?

[paste]

I was sleeping, I woke up, and read tig what's wrong with me?

BTW David caruso: How do you explain that, when given the chance to study, women perform way better on average than men (yes even in math and logic)? Society held by women are statistically more stable than those build by men. Also It is statistically easier to find men under 70 of QI than women...

Link?

He meant that when playing hide and seek, men with an IQ < 70 are generally worse at hiding than the whole female gender.

[Paul Eres]

don't you guys know that you suck at discussion?

if so, do you really think you are exceptionally good at it?

to me discussion isn't something that one is good or bad at. although you can be good or bad at being articulate, or at presenting what you are thinking clearly. but discussion isn't a skill with an ends or goal, it's an end in itself, done for its own sake. may as well say that someone sucks at hanging out, or sucks at watching tv.

[_Madk]

Can't stay on-topic? Check.
Rarely, if ever, cite reliable sources? Check.
Personal insults? Check.
Inane logic? Check.
Take jokes way too seriously? Check.

Nope, I think a bunch of them really do suck at discussion.