Taxi Driver:
O' I see, and how are they culturally marginalized? I'm not being sarcastic, call me blind but I really don't see it.

Unless you're an anthropologist/sociologist, it is extremely difficult to see or understand. And I guess that's why I'm so frustrated that so few people understand that even with all the progress in individual rights, it's still very much a white man's world when it comes to culture.

Taxi Driver:
If males are mutations of women how did the mutation occur if are species was incapable of reproducing? Unless these alpha women you speak of were actually both male and female.

It occurs when the baby is a few weeks old before the y chromosome kicks in and changes it to male.

Taxi Driver:

Death Magnetic:

Taxi Driver:
If males are mutations of women how did the mutation occur if are species was incapable of reproducing? Unless these alpha women you speak of were actually both male and female.

It occurs when the baby is a few weeks old before the y chromosome kicks in and changes it to male.

So males are females...but with more?

Just with a sausage, two avocadoes and tetosterone.

Taxi Driver:

Death Magnetic:

Taxi Driver:
If males are mutations of women how did the mutation occur if are species was incapable of reproducing? Unless these alpha women you speak of were actually both male and female.

It occurs when the baby is a few weeks old before the y chromosome kicks in and changes it to male.

So males are females...but with more?

Less, allegedly. We get the increased musculature and physical strength, with an adrenal feeding system. Women have similar body structure with increased protection to the sensitive areas but 'pay' for it with a randomising hormonal structure. What they have is a means of replication and don't have to have a secondary brain controlling their genetalia.

We get two hormones that flatline, they get six that go ape most of the time.

Taxi Driver:

Death Magnetic:

Taxi Driver:
If males are mutations of women how did the mutation occur if are species was incapable of reproducing? Unless these alpha women you speak of were actually both male and female.

It occurs when the baby is a few weeks old before the y chromosome kicks in and changes it to male.

So males are females...but with more?

Well, in a sense. For the first few weeks they are totally identical. Then the reproductive parts are developed etc.

Taxi Driver:

Death Magnetic:

Taxi Driver:
If males are mutations of women how did the mutation occur if are species was incapable of reproducing? Unless these alpha women you speak of were actually both male and female.

It occurs when the baby is a few weeks old before the y chromosome kicks in and changes it to male.

So males are females...but with more?

I once read a very interesting abstract about a study on a genetic condition occurring mostly in Southern Mexico and Guatemala, if I remember correctly. These children are genetically male, but have a mutation that prevents testosterone from being properly produced and/or processed, I forget which exactly. They grow up looking just like girls - actually, especially attractive girls - and most often don't suspect there's a problem until late puberty or even marriage. Their gonads do not develop into testes and remain internal, and they have short vaginal canals without a womb, of course. These "girls" are well-adjusted, exteriorly normal girls who do identify as girls and continue living as women (albeit without reproductive capability) after diagnosis.

Two things come to mind. The first is the contrast between these girls and those poor unfortunate genetic males who because of penis mutilation during circumcision or accident are given estrogen and raised as girls and are almost uniformly miserable as girls without knowing why. The second is that without testosterone and the associated secondary sex hormones, men are but (slightly) defective women.

mshcherbatskaya:
@werepossum
First, if you can tell me about those studies, who did them, where I can look them up, etc., I'd love to know. I mean, the obvious flaw one might expect would be that the experiment didn't start early enough, and that the people raising the children knew what gender the children were and so their gender expectations were communicated through non-verbal means anyway. The children were also not removed from the culture at large, I assume? That is the inherent problem with trying to do human nature experiments on infants and young children. You get to choose between an experiment that's flawed in its methods or unsupportable in its ethics.

Here's a less formalized experiment a couple of my friends have done with their new babies: They refused to tell other people what gender they were. You'd be amazed at how worked up people got at it. 6 weeks old and people don't know how to treat the kid or deal with the situation if they don't know the gender designation, which on a baby that literally cannot fully focus its eyes yet is just absurd.

Second of all, I actually don't dispute that there are inherent differences in men and women based on hormones, if only due to the experiences of the trans-men and trans-women I've known. But I do believe that we've taken that base foundation and built a big conceptual fun-house on top of it which isn't, in the end, all that fun for anybody.

See, now I really, really wish I hadn't sold so many of my books when I was young and broke, because I had one that examined documents, broadsides, and pamphlets written before the 1700's and it was amazing, all the talk of women's sexual greed, and how if it weren't for the civilizing influence of men taming them, they'd all return to a state of nature. That was before we reversed the cultural polarity on Nature as well, from being nasty and brutish to being pure and uplifting. (Damn Romantics and their daffodil worship!) That was also before childhood became romanticized, Rousseau and his blank slate and all that. It was a big cultural shift, all part of the Enlightenment, and damn I really wish I still had that book!

I do have a book called "Female Power and Male Dominance", though. It's an anthropological study, looking to see if there are particular traits or circumstances that encourage cultures to be more or less patriarchal. It's been a while since I read it. I should take a look at it again. Actually, I need to spend less time on internet forums talking about feminism and more time reading. I was looking at my bookshelf and realizing that most of my books on feminism were written in the 90's, which means that the studies and demographic info they cite use information from the 1980's census. I need to get some new books and update my numbers.
SNIP

Actually I can't, it was in the late 70s or early 80s that I read them, while in college. The children were not removed from society; it was actually the parents who did the care-giving, with sociologists standing by and observing. Much like your friends, the parents were convinced that "male" and "female" were arbitrary roles assigned by society, and set out to prove their beliefs scientifically. Besides the obvious problem that human behavior is inherently analog and must be classified through human judgment into classes.

My larger point though was that all societies separate men and women into different classes and activities. In other words, although it's fashionable among feminists and liberals at large to assign this gender separation to Western society, it's at least as present (and usually more so) in cultures which are as completely separated from Western societies as is possible to be. Generally speaking the more primitive the society, the more closely it sticks to traditional gender roles for the simple reason that they work best overall, and when your society is perennially close to starvation or malnutrition, efficient division of labor is important. Training a girl to prepare food and forage only to find out she would prefer to be a hunter is inefficient, so people tend to be forced into roles even more strongly in subsistence-level cultures.

I think I've still got some Medieval period and perhaps earlier contemporary writings, although I'm not sure and can't get to them now anyway. I've read the same things, although generally attributed to women having more original sin and being inherently less trustworthy and moral than men. And I agree that women have more sexual greed, but you have to admit that we men are better at satisfying ours. LOL

My only complaint with women's studies programs is that they perpetrate the perceived sex-based discrimination and associated need for feminism. Women get degrees in women's studies and then discover that they aren't trained to do anything except teach women's studies. Unable to get a good job, they then ascribe their difficulty in finding good jobs to sex-based discrimination rather than to their own failure to obtain education in a field where employers are willing to hire. Generally speaking, employers look for the skilled, not the enlightened.

I like the idea of feminism to a certain point, it's okay that you want to be treated equally and that you want equal pay and equal job opportunities and things like that...

However, when you want both that and to be treated like a delicate flower, it's too much.
I say that laws of punishment and the likes should be equal as well, all forms of harassment should be equally punished as well as all forms of abuse.
And don't fuck up our videogames, seriously.
Games in my opinion are a certain freedom of speech, they have the right to be sexist to a certain degree.

Redtiebear:
SNIP
....But hey, everyone likes a door opened for them, in all politeness. :P

Actually, not everyone does. I've had a few women jump down my throat for attempting to open a door for them. The funniest was a woman who literally cursed me, saying she could open her own @*&$ door and then could not in fact open the door. I've also once had a woman who waited at the door when I was maybe forty paces away, then grumbled "Took you long enough" as though I should have broken into a run to open the door for her. You can't please everyone.

But then I'm a polite old Southern fart, I'll happily open the door for whomever happens to be passing through.

werepossum:

Redtiebear:
SNIP
....But hey, everyone likes a door opened for them, in all politeness. :P

Actually, not everyone does. I've had a few women jump down my throat for attempting to open a door for them. The funniest was a woman who literally cursed me, saying she could open her own @*&$ door and then could not in fact open the door. I've also once had a woman who waited at the door when I was maybe forty paces away, then grumbled "Took you long enough" as though I should have broken into a run to open the door for her. You can't please everyone.

But then I'm a polite old Southern fart, I'll happily open the door for whomever happens to be passing through.

I also open the door for most people if they're nearby, no matter what gender they are.
My exceptions are when they're too far away and I'd have to wait for them to get to the door.

mk well more women SAY their going to commit suicide but boys are more likely to go throught it thru thought god damnit hate that word >:(

Phoenix Arrow:

Blayze:
And your reasons, Magnetic?

Probably because he's in secondary school where girls tend to do better than boys. Nothing to do with girls being genetically smarter. More to with effort.

And about marginalisation, generally if you have a male and a female candidates for a job, both are equally qualified and have equal experience. The male will get the job because it's seen as a safer option. That's just a personal observation I've made.

Actually, girls tend to better in school, but it's not necesarily due solely to effort (although girls do tend to work harder.) The traditional teaching method tends to favour the learning method most suited to girls, whereas boys find it easier to learn with a more hands-on approach.
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/gender_specific_gender_related_curricula/templates/28.+Boys+and+Girls+Learn+Differently.htm
Werepossum, you wouldn't be thinking of the infamous Money study would you?

werepossum:

Much like your friends, the parents were convinced that "male" and "female" were arbitrary roles assigned by society, and set out to prove their beliefs scientifically. Besides the obvious problem that human behavior is inherently analog and must be classified through human judgment into classes.

Oh, my friends weren't of the opinion that male and female are arbitrary, at least, not that they ever stated to me. They were less interested in the the effect on their children than they were in the effect on adults on being forced to address a human being without having information as to the human being's gender. It's kind of like the way I sometimes hold the door open for guys in a gentlemanly fashion. I've had guys refuse to go through the door before me, which created a bit of a Mexican standoff, and then when they finally go through the door, they look very put out. Not that either case proves anything in a scientific fashion, it's just an interesting social experiement.

My larger point though was that all societies separate men and women into different classes and activities. In other words, although it's fashionable among feminists and liberals at large to assign this gender separation to Western society, it's at least as present (and usually more so) in cultures which are as completely separated from Western societies as is possible to be. Generally speaking the more primitive the society, the more closely it sticks to traditional gender roles for the simple reason that they work best overall, and when your society is perennially close to starvation or malnutrition, efficient division of labor is important. Training a girl to prepare food and forage only to find out she would prefer to be a hunter is inefficient, so people tend to be forced into roles even more strongly in subsistence-level cultures.

That is the impression I get too, but the more I think of it, the more I realize that my knowledge of gender division in different cultures is anecdotal, otherwise known as National Geographic. I've never seen any sort of sociological survey of who does what tasks in what cultures. It would be an interesting thing to see.

Again, I don't actually deny that there is such a thing as inherent gender difference. If it were all purely social conditioning, there would be no such thing as a transgendered person. The whole problem of "society tells me I'm X, but I'm really a Y inside" wouldn't happen if we only went by what society tells us. On the other hand, spending time around self-identified butch women and femme men, who are a totally different phenomenon than transgendered or homosexual people, also lets me see that masculinity and femininity are not necessarily inextricably linked to male and female. People act in "gender-inappropriate" ways all the time, but it gets written off or explained away.

I have a pet theory that gender affinity (masculinity or femininity) is on a continuum, like sexual preference. Some people are straight, some people are gay, a lot of people are at various places in between. Some people are feminine, some people are masculine, and some people are at various places in between. In most cases, gender, gender affinity, and sexual preference line up pretty well. A female person would generally be feminine and heterosexual. But not always, and yes there really are butch straight women, and yes, there really are femme straight men and that's who they've always been since they were little kids. And of course there are femme lesbians and butch gay men. Female/feminine and male/masculine might be the most common, but I believe that it has become a cultural Procrustean bed. And just because there is a natural basis for masculinity/feminity doesn't mean that the culture hasn't exaggerated some aspects of these beyond reason and ignored or suppressed others. That's what I mean about getting down the root of it. I don't think we would all be as androgynous as angels in a perfect world. I don't think we should get rid of all our ideas about gender, I think we should question all our ideas about gender and see whether they are really true in general and true for us personally, and whether or not they are ultimately functional or destructive. There are lots of things that are inherent and natural that don't really work in a developed society.

I think I've still got some Medieval period and perhaps earlier contemporary writings, although I'm not sure and can't get to them now anyway. I've read the same things, although generally attributed to women having more original sin and being inherently less trustworthy and moral than men. And I agree that women have more sexual greed, but you have to admit that we men are better at satisfying ours. LOL

Well, I'll have to admit that you are better at better at satisfying yours than you are at satisfying ours. (Oh burn!) The whole "women are naturally less sexual"/"women are naturally sexually voracious" virgin/whore dichotomy would be an example of one of the ideas about gender that really needs to be torn down and examined.

My only complaint with women's studies programs is that they perpetrate the perceived sex-based discrimination and associated need for feminism. Women get degrees in women's studies and then discover that they aren't trained to do anything except teach women's studies. Unable to get a good job, they then ascribe their difficulty in finding good jobs to sex-based discrimination rather than to their own failure to obtain education in a field where employers are willing to hire. Generally speaking, employers look for the skilled, not the enlightened.

What you just said of the job prospects of women's studies majors goes double for philosophy majors and creative writing majors, and I don't think anyone who gets a liberal arts degree (which women's studies is) should have any illusions about it increasing their employabiilty. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who was a women's studies major who expected to be able to get a job out of it. They did it for the same reason philosophy majors studied philosophy and creative writing majors studied creative writing--because they really wanted to. And yes, I have known philosophy majors to whine about being unable to find a job because they are just too damn smart, so I don't think women's studies majors have any sort of a corner on that particular pile of middle-class self-pity.

When I look through human history, and society, I get a number of mixed messages about a female's role in society. Some of the oldest prehistoric human societies were matriarchal in nature, because people considered a woman's ability to produce new life as sacred.

As time went on, most societies which developed became increasingly patriarchal. However, I still see mixed messages. For example, in the legends of king Arthur, rape occurs several times. Arthur's father commits rape by deception, but does not suffer any retribution. Later in the story, a mighty warrior rapes two women, one of whom commits suicide. Arthur proceeds to hack the warrior to pieces before cutting off his head, and killing him.

In the second event, brutal retribution is dished out to the warrior who so blatantly violated a woman's humanity.

I'm not saying that Western society has ever been equal as far as gender goes, but there are definitely contradictions about a woman's role in society, and there have been throughout history.

These were just some things that I thought I'd point out.

So, perhaps it's time we used our miraculous genetic engineering capabilities to reduce mankind to a monogendered species, obviously somehow still capable of reproduction (hey, nature has gotten away with much crazier stuff before...). Good idea? Or...?

Phoenix Arrow:

Taxi Driver:

So males are females...but with more?

Well, in a sense. For the first few weeks they are totally identical. Then the reproductive parts are developed etc.

Um, Backwards much? Men and women are identical at birth, but hormones decide whether or not the penis develops fully or not. That is actually what a woman's Clitoris IS. It is the remains of an undeveloped Penis.

Feminisim, to me used to actually mean somthing, you know sufferage and all that great stuff. But recently they have crossed the line dividing meaningful and bullshit. Because some feminists(NOT ALL) want to be paid like a man, and get all the privileges of a man thats great, all for it, but they also want to get treated like a woman, I think they need to choose ONE or the OTHER, because I actually had a buddy who got sent to a tolerance seminar because of that shit.

Wardog13:
Feminisim, to me used to actually mean somthing, you know sufferage and all that great stuff. But recently they have crossed the line dividing meaningful and bullshit. Because some feminists(NOT ALL) want to be paid like a man, and get all the privileges of a man, but get treated like a woman, I think they need to choose ONE or the OTHER, because I actually had a buddy who got sent to a tolerance seminar because of that shit.

Sounds like someone else has to go to that tolerance seminar too!

Eggo:

Wardog13:
Feminisim, to me used to actually mean somthing, you know sufferage and all that great stuff. But recently they have crossed the line dividing meaningful and bullshit. Because some feminists(NOT ALL) want to be paid like a man, and get all the privileges of a man, but get treated like a woman, I think they need to choose ONE or the OTHER, because I actually had a buddy who got sent to a tolerance seminar because of that shit.

Sounds like someone else has to go to that tolerance seminar too!

Tolerance seminars, anger management, and sensitivity training is to quote Penn and Teller...BULLSHIT.

Look I had to go through that stuff when I was a kid because girls were afraid of me because I had to go through school the same time when columbine shooting happened. I had to spend hours a day listening and watching videos brainwashing material explaining why everyone is "special" and had to chant crap like "we are individuals"(Really sad I had to point the problem with that multiple times to the counselors, only one got it and sent me home). Most of these things that are well intentioned but if anything makes people more aware and more intolerant of the society they live in.

I agree with Wardog's statement. There are a lot of good people out there men and women who support true feminism, the basic right that every human man or woman is equal regardless of gender. However not everyone is great at practicing what they preach and some even abuse this for their own malevolent gain. Reason I had to go all those seminars was because women wanted to feel equal and forced their will using the school system to control me and not letting me have my say because "I was a man". They literally had it both ways, they were equal human beings but at the same time when it came to being threatened or the "feeling" of threatened they would cry wolf and blame everyone but themselves.

It is this abuse that really makes it hard on a lot of men who in American not get a chance to be involved in their child's life(assuming he is a positive role model) when a woman could run to the courts and scream abuse and the husband not only losses financially but more importantly the very children that he and his wife were going to raise together. Some cases when they get the court level are true and those women really do have the right to be protected but those who divorce and do it for financial gain and emotional payback are the ones that need to be brought to justice for their immorality, preying upon humanity.

Plus that really hurts knowing that a woman that I might marry and fall in love who could very well support herself financially can divorce me and even if she there were no kids involved I could be ordered to pay her. That is one of the double standards that plagues our courts and that order is assigned so liberally that some men like Tom Likes on free talk radio(don't really like the guy) is competely mysoginistic that it makes my stomach churn knowing that he is just after women for the sex and not the relationship. That is something I do not wish to happen to me or anyone I know.

Edit 2: Here is the tail end of this Penn and teller BS episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUnu2xcvMoM
This is the same stuff I actually had to go through while I was in school.

Yeah, young white males have a really hard time living in America.

Really tough.

Look, i've only read the first page and the last page, so I might be jumping in the deep end a little bit here, but it seems to me that someone played the "I want everything you have and then some, because that will make us equal." card and someone else flipped out.

If two parts of something are equal, they are of the same standing, by saying that you want to be treated fairly and equal, but want special treatment, the fact you can bear children no longer counts. By asking for special treatment, you are boarding a ship adjacent to the "Let's be equal ship" and you are currently on the "I want more then you" ship. Both are heading in two different directions.

Now let's see;
If you want to be equal then as a women you lose any right for maternity leave, just as a man can't just leave work because their penis falls off, they might be able to take a week off, but if you want to be equal then that's a no fly zone. As an employee, your wages will be based off of performance, NOT off gender. If you fail at photocopying reports and a man just so happens to be able to push a button more efficiently then you will not get that raise and you should not be able to complain that it's because you're a women, but you should be able to question your own competence.

however, men would be in the same boat. If they aren't effective at pushing that button then they will be dealt with the same way, i.e Equally to any other employee.

I'm being negative probably because i've been a victim of the "But i'm a women, SEXIST!" card and frankly, you should build a bridge.

Why is it that you want equal rights, but then have a separate word for men and women who discriminate. If you're a feminist, you're always a women, but if you're a SEXIST, then you're almost always a man. If you want equal rights, why are we not all labeled as sexist then? Why are you so special?

And then there's the "woe is me, i'm a women and i'm treated unfairly" bullshit that i hear spouted at me from every direction. I'm currently attending school and studying a class in which we took an in depth look at the development of feminism. A girl in the class cried about how she is a manager, but is paid less then all the boys, but when asked to prove it said she couldn't. By instantly crying about how men are bastards, you become discriminatory yourself, and therefor become a hypocrite.

As a man, i don't appreciate being stereotyped as a sex mongering dirtbag. The small minority that do discriminate are then assumed to be in proportion to the rest of the male gender. I am sick of being labeled as a scum bag because someone beat their wife and i'm sick of having to feel like it's my fault that someone is being discriminated against. It is not my fault and my gender doesn't deserve to be stereotyped that way. Besides, without us, you would never be able to open those god damn jars or jam.

sidenote:
Women are fairly equal in Australia, they have every right that a man does. And the reason no women is in politics really, is that the third wave of feminism wasn't that long ago and since then, no women has been able to get into parliament because they are either uninterested, or have not made the effort. It is not a valid argument to say that you are being discriminated because you can't do something, then not TRY at all to do that said thing.

edit: This is no excuse, but it's midnight and my rant is disjointed and full of assumptions. Don't take any of it to heart, i am rambling.

Pie:
And then there's the "woe is me, i'm a women and i'm treated unfairly" bullshit that i hear spouted at me from every direction. I'm currently attending school and studying a class in which we took an in depth look at the development of feminism. A girl in the class cried about how she is a manager, but is paid less then all the boys, but when asked to prove it said she couldn't. By instantly crying about how men are bastards, you become discriminatory yourself, and therefor become a hypocrite.

It's funny because this thread is full of the "woe is me, i'm a man and i'm treated unfairly" bullshit.