The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

You need it? Do you really? Fascinating. Anyways even without never point stands. Something failing for you, for whatever reasons that could include other sources, is a silly basis to think it would fail for another.

I said faith in sayings. Do you believe your anecdotal evidence is a saying?

So you admit that I never said 'never' so you continue with your strawman. You claim I failed at something and then attack it but I never said that I failed at something. Try not to jump to conclusions. I would like for you to clarify, do you believe that 'opposites attract' is nothing more than a saying based in stupidty or bias (your words) or do you believe it is based in some truth?

Well if it wasn't personal that makes it all the more silly when it comes to full knowledge of the situation.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. It's a saying. It doesn't have real evidence for it. It's mindless repetition of a common belief.

Experience comes for observation as well as doing.
Edit: Also, I need you to come right out and say that you think 'opposites attract' is complete bullshit or not. Don't dance around it this time.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

So you admit that I never said 'never' so you continue with your strawman. You claim I failed at something and then attack it but I never said that I failed at something. Try not to jump to conclusions. I would like for you to clarify, do you believe that 'opposites attract' is nothing more than a saying based in stupidty or bias (your words) or do you believe it is based in some truth?

Well if it wasn't personal that makes it all the more silly when it comes to full knowledge of the situation.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. It's a saying. It doesn't have real evidence for it. It's mindless repetition of a common belief.

Experience comes for observation as well as doing.
Edit: Also, I need you to come right out and say that you think 'opposites attract' is complete bullshit or not. Don't dance around it this time.

Well see, your observational skills seem rather... untrustworthy.

Like, has it ever crossed your mind that I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing? And that saying random things are true based on feelings or makeing sweeping statements based on a small bit of experience is dumb?

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well if it wasn't personal that makes it all the more silly when it comes to full knowledge of the situation.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. It's a saying. It doesn't have real evidence for it. It's mindless repetition of a common belief.

Experience comes for observation as well as doing.
Edit: Also, I need you to come right out and say that you think 'opposites attract' is complete bullshit or not. Don't dance around it this time.

Well see, your observational skills seem rather... untrustworthy.

Like, has it ever crossed your mind that I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing? And that saying random things are true based on feelings or makeing sweeping statements based on a small bit of experience is dumb?

You still can't directly answer and you are fence sitting. 'Opposites Attract' is not proven, this is a true statement and I never said otherwise. 'Likes Attract' is also not proven so that puts us back at square one. What I said was:

ME:
Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Now what does that mean? It means that I think 'likes attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'opposites attract' but I never said anything was absolute and I was trying to determine if you were talking in absolutes. You still never gave a straight answer but I guess:

YOU:
I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing?

is close enough. You do not think it is complete bullshit, you just think that 'opposites attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'likes attract'.

Now as for my experience. Having been with my wife for 10 years and us being very different is part of my experience. It's the things she does that I would never do that makes things interesting. When I look at my parents and other family members who have been married for decades I see that the same thing. I have seen other relatives get with people who they are very much alike and it didn't last because no one is perfect and ones own flaws reflected back at them is often a deal breaker. Now my cousin has made 'likes attract' work for decades and good for him but that is the only instance I have ever seen.

So you see, 'in my experience' doesn't mean I failed at anything.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

Experience comes for observation as well as doing.
Edit: Also, I need you to come right out and say that you think 'opposites attract' is complete bullshit or not. Don't dance around it this time.

Well see, your observational skills seem rather... untrustworthy.

Like, has it ever crossed your mind that I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing? And that saying random things are true based on feelings or makeing sweeping statements based on a small bit of experience is dumb?

You still can't directly answer and you are fence sitting. 'Opposites Attract' is not proven, this is a true statement and I never said otherwise. 'Likes Attract' is also not proven so that puts us back at square one. What I said was:

ME:
Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Now what does that mean? It means that I think 'likes attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'opposites attract' but I never said anything was absolute and I was trying to determine if you were talking in absolutes. You still never gave a straight answer but I guess:

YOU:
I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing?

is close enough. You do not think it is complete bullshit, you just think that 'opposites attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'likes attract'.

Now as for my experience. Having been with my wife for 10 years and us being very different is part of my experience. It's the things she does that I would never do that makes things interesting. When I look at my parents and other family member who have been married for decades I see that the same thing. I have seen other relatives get with people who they are very much alike and it didn't last because no one is perfect and ones own flaws reflected back at them is often a deal breaker. Now my cousin has made 'likes attract' work and good for him for decades but that is the only instance I have ever seen.

So you see, in my experience doesn't mean I failed at anything.

You don't seem to understand why someone would take issue with people spouting unfounded statements.

Also that's pretty vague experience, some of which really has absolutely nothing to do with the reverse.

The Decapitated Centaur:

We're talking behaviors presumably so strength is irrelevant....

I'm finding that you're spouting irrelevant tangents to some questions. Like am I to believe you think either of us are talking about hair?

But if you can acknowledge these differences in sexes, strength, hairiness, and that they are not learned, then you can assume the possibility/likely hood that there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

I hear about the horrors of some institutions trying to teach gay men to be straight. I hope to never hear of something similar with trying to "condition" men to be identical to women.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

We're talking behaviors presumably so strength is irrelevant....

I'm finding that you're spouting irrelevant tangents to some questions. Like am I to believe you think either of us are talking about hair?

But if you can acknowledge these differences in sexes, strength, hairiness, and that they are not learned, then you can assume the possibility/likely hood that there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

I hear about the horrors of some institutions trying to teach gay men to be straight. I hope to never hear of something similar with trying to "condition" men to be identical to women.

Well this cutting parts out sure is nice

I asked you to cite the non-learned behaviors and how you determined their origin. Quite frankly you're just avoiding actually answering that. Good job roundaboutly coming back to the point that I was asking you to provide concrete examples of and still not doing so -_-

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well see, your observational skills seem rather... untrustworthy.

Like, has it ever crossed your mind that I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing? And that saying random things are true based on feelings or makeing sweeping statements based on a small bit of experience is dumb?

You still can't directly answer and you are fence sitting. 'Opposites Attract' is not proven, this is a true statement and I never said otherwise. 'Likes Attract' is also not proven so that puts us back at square one. What I said was:

ME:
Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Now what does that mean? It means that I think 'likes attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'opposites attract' but I never said anything was absolute and I was trying to determine if you were talking in absolutes. You still never gave a straight answer but I guess:

YOU:
I don't need to think it's complete bullshit to think that it's not at all a proven thing?

is close enough. You do not think it is complete bullshit, you just think that 'opposites attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'likes attract'.

Now as for my experience. Having been with my wife for 10 years and us being very different is part of my experience. It's the things she does that I would never do that makes things interesting. When I look at my parents and other family member who have been married for decades I see that the same thing. I have seen other relatives get with people who they are very much alike and it didn't last because no one is perfect and ones own flaws reflected back at them is often a deal breaker. Now my cousin has made 'likes attract' work and good for him for decades but that is the only instance I have ever seen.

So you see, in my experience doesn't mean I failed at anything.

You don't seem to understand why someone would take issue with people spouting unfounded statements.

Also that's pretty vague experience, some of which really has absolutely nothing to do with the reverse.

How did I know you would downplay my experience?

The Decapitated Centaur:
Snip

Edit: Quoted wrong person x_x

WeepingAngels:

Saelune:
Want less divorces? Then as I stated in the topic about if technology is hurting relationships, DATE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY!

Seriously, if you dont enjoy spending time with your partner for a few hours doing something together, how the fuck are you going to spend decades together!?

And sexism wont help that. If men have to be this way and women that way, then it wont help straight couples be happy. Men, wouldnt you prefer she watch sports with you? Maybe she helps you fix up that old car you have been working on? Helps you while you hunt like the manly man you are?

Women, wouldnt it be nice if you cooked as a couple? If he had emotions and cared about you? If he cared more about loving you than beating up people who want to love you?

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Extremes dont sit well. Sure its good to have differences, but being too different wont help. Really the good differences more should be called "synergy", where each person's differences work to the other's benefit.

If I only eat meat, but they are a strict vegetarian (or worse, vegan), those opposite views will clash and create problems. But if we both like similar restaurants, but say, the sides we get the other likes, maybe he doesnt like the fries he gets with his stake, and I hate the pickle and coleslaw that always comes with my friggen burger, but he loves it, then we trade. Ok, not the biggest "opposite" but still, a difference that works together.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

You still can't directly answer and you are fence sitting. 'Opposites Attract' is not proven, this is a true statement and I never said otherwise. 'Likes Attract' is also not proven so that puts us back at square one. What I said was:

Now what does that mean? It means that I think 'likes attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'opposites attract' but I never said anything was absolute and I was trying to determine if you were talking in absolutes. You still never gave a straight answer but I guess:

is close enough. You do not think it is complete bullshit, you just think that 'opposites attract' is LESS LIKELY to work than 'likes attract'.

Now as for my experience. Having been with my wife for 10 years and us being very different is part of my experience. It's the things she does that I would never do that makes things interesting. When I look at my parents and other family member who have been married for decades I see that the same thing. I have seen other relatives get with people who they are very much alike and it didn't last because no one is perfect and ones own flaws reflected back at them is often a deal breaker. Now my cousin has made 'likes attract' work and good for him for decades but that is the only instance I have ever seen.

So you see, in my experience doesn't mean I failed at anything.

You don't seem to understand why someone would take issue with people spouting unfounded statements.

Also that's pretty vague experience, some of which really has absolutely nothing to do with the reverse.

How did I know you would downplay my experience?

I imagine because you're aware how bad a point it makes to say you just know why people's relationships turned out as they did? Or that saying you found differences interesting doesn't in fact rule out anything about similarities?

Saelune:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Nah that seems pretty untrue. It's silly to have faith in silly sayings

Extremes dont sit well. Sure its good to have differences, but being too different wont help. Really the good differences more should be called "synergy", where each person's differences work to the other's benefit.

If I only eat meat, but they are a strict vegetarian (or worse, vegan), those opposite views will clash and create problems. But if we both like similar restaurants, but say, the sides we get the other likes, maybe he doesnt like the fries he gets with his stake, and I hate the pickle and coleslaw that always comes with my friggen burger, but he loves it, then we trade. Ok, not the biggest "opposite" but still, a difference that works together.

Edit: Quoted wrong person x_x

This sounds like a much more reasonable view than some trite snippet like 'Opposites attract'. It's not a matter of silly vague things like 'opposites' that make things work or not work. Differences don't have to be an issue and neither do similarities, it's a matter of how things work together. Sometimes being of the same mind or preference on things is helpful, sometimes differences can make a better team.

Now there's two of you to say that my opinion is invalid. Well, I give up.

Gorfias:
That could start a whole other thread! Long story short: are they relatively isolated from the negative effects of a policy they would impose on others? Are they actually benefited by something that does great social harm? Do they have power disproportionate to their representation in society? That would be a start.

Those are such vague generalisations that I'm pretty sure you could declare almost all men to be "elite" men under those terms..

Gorfias:
And is she really that polarizing? Sounds like Katherine McKinnon type non-sense. Nasty syllogism. 1. All sex is rape. 2. Women want sex. Ergo 3. Women want to be raped?

Basically yeah.

As I said, she's a Freudian who takes Freud incredibly literally (most Freudians today do not). That means that classic Freudian view of gender formation. Men are defined, essentially, by wanting to fuck their mothers and yet not being able to. Women are defined, essentially, by an existential horror of not being men. Men can react to wanting to fuck their mothers either in an "Appolonian" fashion (by denying their bodies and focusing on mental or intellectual pursuits) or in a "Dionysian" fashion (by delving into the darkness of their own sexuality through art) but neither is wholly sufficient, sometimes its not enough to just rape women in books or paintings. Literal rape is part of this continuum of resolving the Oedipal crisis of being male, hence why Paglia utterly rejects the idea that rape is about power or humiliation.

Women, however, again in this classic Freudian sense, don't have the option of resolving their internal dramas in this way. Instead, the psychological drama of being female is realising that, by being born without a penis, you already failed. You're the one who gets fucked, not the one who does the fucking, so you'd better learn to like being fucked. That's why women can't be as "creative" as men, they are essentially, fundamentally passive. They have no real drives or desires because part of becoming a woman was realising that they were failures and that they could never have what they wanted (a penis, obviously). Paglia's point, as with Freud, is very, very, very literally that women are defective men, they are defective because they came with a missing piece.

It might seem like I'm dwelling on this too much, but it illustrates what I feel is an important point. These Gender Essentialists, while they may tell you that men are from Mars and women are from Venus and that's okay, still have to live in a world where men commit the majority of crimes, where sexual violence by men is routine, and where it's only in the past few decades in which it became normal for women to have much control whatsoever over their own lives. They may soothe your anxiety over whether being a like this is natural, but go a bit deeper and look into what they're actually saying about men.. because what they're usually saying about men is horrific.

Gorfias:
Would those women feel freer in a society where all men have been turned into lobotomized eunichs?

Well, yeah..

Do you feel less free from living in a society in which dangerous people, people who have been shown to pose a demonstrable risk, are provided with the supervision and help they need, and where necessary kept far away from people they might hurt? How exactly is this different?

Gorfias:
They see their beauty as a source of power: they can get men to do things for them. Wipe out appreciation for the beautiful (as if that can be done) and you reduce their power.

Do you though?

Let's ask a simple question. If a woman can get a man things do things for her because she is beautiful, why is it that the man they're manipulating is able to do those things in the first place without being beautiful.

For that matter, are men not beautiful? Are men so repulsive that they are somehow not capable of attracting the desire of someone else without being required to give something in return?

Again, isn't it kind of hateful to deny that men can be beautiful, to deny that men can be the objects of sexual desire, to assume that noone could ever want them enough to want to do things for them because they're men and men are gross.

I don't think men are gross.

Gorfias:
Would it be a freer, more just society if men were rounded up and put into death camps?

Not for those men, obviously, but then.. again.. would it be a freer and more just society if dangerous mental patients were allowed to wander around untreated?

Like, sure, you can believe that the differences between men and women are not what causes them to be violent, controlling or prone to sexual assault, but then what's the point in believing that men and women are different? If we're just going to ignore those differences, why not just ignore them all?

WeepingAngels:
Now there's two of you to say that my opinion is invalid. Well, I give up.

Disagreeing with your opinion doesnt mean we think it is invalid.

What works for one person doesnt always work for another. If you find someone who is seemingly your complete opposite, but you love eachother and make eachother happy, good for you. I wont tell a person in a happy loving relationship they are wrong. But I find more often than not, differences sink a relationship more than keep it floating.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Gorfias:
...there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

Well this cutting parts out sure is nice

I asked you to cite the non-learned behaviors and how you determined their origin. Quite frankly you're just avoiding actually answering that. Good job roundaboutly coming back to the point that I was asking you to provide concrete examples of and still not doing so -_-

Are you writing that you think watching porn is purely a learned behavior or that you need a citation to believe this is so?

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
That could start a whole other thread! Long story short: are they relatively isolated from the negative effects of a policy they would impose on others? Are they actually benefited by something that does great social harm? Do they have power disproportionate to their representation in society? That would be a start.

Those are such vague generalizations that I'm pretty sure you could declare almost all men to be "elite" men under those terms..

I think from this "generalization" one could distinguish between say, a USSC Justice vs. a car mechanic.

These Gender Essentialists, while they may tell you that men are from Mars and women are from Venus and that's okay, still have to live in a world where men commit the majority of crimes, where sexual violence by men is routine, and where it's only in the past few decades in which it became normal for women to have much control whatsoever over their own lives. They may soothe your anxiety over whether being a like this is natural, but go a bit deeper and look into what they're actually saying about men.. because what they're usually saying about men is horrific.

I have to think there is a problem with your analysis in that, if all men are essentially rapists, I don't think rape would have ever been a crime. In the Western world, it typically has been.
Also, I've heard and read that Freud has been totally intellectually over-turned. I think much of what he's written is non-sense (penis envy) but he decided to study sex because there he saw purely non-physical stimuli result in physiological changes. He should not be dismissed.
And Paglia's point again was not that all men are rapists but that they have innate sexual predatory hungers that can and have been channeled into the creativity that created the Western world as we know it.
She spearheaded an entire movement meant to roll back a form of intelligentsia that wanted to vilify the very concept of beauty.
I am interested enough to do some searches to see if she ever stated she thinks that women are failures from the start as they do not have penises.

Gorfias:
Would those women feel freer in a society where all men have been turned into lobotomized eunichs?

Well, yeah..

I doubt it. Those women, should they choose to have kids, are about 50% likely to have a son. I doubt they'd like knowing the kids going to have his brain cut up and his wedding tackle cut off.
Saying used to be until all are free, none of us really are. For instance, in the USA, Black Americans are more likely to engage in violent crime than white Americans. On the whole, I do not think White Americans would feel freer with a draconian government destroying Black people to make us feel safer.

Gorfias:
They see their beauty as a source of power: they can get men to do things for them. Wipe out appreciation for the beautiful (as if that can be done) and you reduce their power.

Do you though?
Let's ask a simple question. If a woman can get a man things do things for her because she is beautiful, why is it that the man they're manipulating is able to do those things in the first place without being beautiful.
For that matter, are men not beautiful? Are men so repulsive that they are somehow not capable of attracting the desire of someone else without being required to give something in return?
Again, isn't it kind of hateful to deny that men can be beautiful, to deny that men can be the objects of sexual desire, to assume that noone could ever want them enough to want to do things for them because they're men and men are gross.
I don't think men are gross.

I think you mean to ask can a non-beautiful woman get a man to do things for her? I think?
Yes. And a middle class man can afford enough food to stuff his face and satiate his hunger. I think a rich man has the raw naked power to typically eat better though.

Gorfias:
Would it be a freer, more just society if men were rounded up and put into death camps?

Not for those men, obviously, but then.. again.. would it be a freer and more just society if dangerous mental patients were allowed to wander around untreated?
Like, sure, you can believe that the differences between men and women are not what causes them to be violent, controlling or prone to sexual assault, but then what's the point in believing that men and women are different? If we're just going to ignore those differences, why not just ignore them all?

See above. And I agree, innate differences between the sexes explain why men are more violence prone. But successful societies find ways to channel those differences in constructive ways. Roaming violent should be in a mental ward types? Not so much.

Gorfias:
I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

Why? Now, we don't have a control group where men and women are treated the same to judge these things by, but we do live in a society where men are supposed to be sexual, and women are shamed for it. It would appear that there's at east some social aspect to viewing of porn.

Gorfias:
I hear about the horrors of some institutions trying to teach gay men to be straight. I hope to never hear of something similar with trying to "condition" men to be identical to women.

Sure, but not pressuring men to be different from women is not the same as pressuring them to be the same as women.

For that matter, why is conditioning men to fit some arbitrary standard of womanhood worse than conditioning men to fit some arbitrary standard of manhood? People shouldn't be hammered into arbitrarily shaped holes, no matter what that shape actually is.

Gorfias:
But if you can acknowledge these differences in sexes, strength, hairiness, and that they are not learned, then you can assume the possibility/likely hood that there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

Pardon my skepticism. Do you have any empirical proof that my porn watching habits have some kind of causal link with my chest chair? If I were to shave my chest, would I stop watching porn?

Also, let's be really clear on the strength disparity: that's horseshit. Men generally build muscle mass more easily, but muscle mass doesn't translate into brute strength. Its function is actually for physical endurance. More muscle mass can carry a load a long time before tiring out because the burden is more distributed.

Brute strength comes from muscle groups working in concert. A deadlift for example utilizes your posterior chain, core, shoulders and arms all at once. By splitting the workload like that, the body is more capable of feats of strength. And in that regard, there is no practical difference between men and women.

Thaluikhain:

Why? Now, we don't have a control group where men and women are treated the same to judge these things by, but we do live in a society where men are supposed to be sexual, and women are shamed for it. It would appear that there's at east some social aspect to viewing of porn.

For starters, porn is a relatively private affair now that we have the internet. Public shaming would no longer be much of an impediment to porn usage. And really, the idea that women need to act relatively asexually hasn't be a thing for going on 3 generations in the USA.

Gorfias:

For that matter, why is conditioning men to fit some arbitrary standard of womanhood worse than conditioning men to fit some arbitrary standard of manhood? People shouldn't be hammered into arbitrarily shaped holes, no matter what that shape actually is.

If those differences are natural and of social utility, we as a society have lost something by not encouraging that difference. Like that Captain that abandoned ship to save himself even as others in his charge may drown and die: the idea that chivalry is dead is not a useful idea.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
But if you can acknowledge these differences in sexes, strength, hairiness, and that they are not learned, then you can assume the possibility/likely hood that there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

Pardon my skepticism. Do you have any empirical proof that my porn watching habits have some kind of causal link with my chest chair? If I were to shave my chest, would I stop watching porn?

Would you? I don't think I suggested you would. But can we agree men don't tend to be hairier than women by learning to be hairier? That we can then find all sorts of things that are not culturally conditioned in men?

I am curious: do you think if you took some kind of testosterone blocker and took estrogen, would your chest hair fall off and would you then also lose any interest in porn (assuming you had an interest to begin with).

Also, let's be really clear on the strength disparity: that's horseshit. Men generally build muscle mass more easily, but muscle mass doesn't translate into brute strength. Its function is actually for physical endurance. More muscle mass can carry a load a long time before tiring out because the burden is more distributed.

Brute strength comes from muscle groups working in concert. A deadlift for example utilizes your posterior chain, core, shoulders and arms all at once. By splitting the workload like that, the body is more capable of feats of strength. And in that regard, there is no practical difference between men and women.

Did I miss something or am I correct: there are no women in the NFL?

Gorfias:
Public shaming would no longer be much of an impediment to porn usage.

A culture doesn't stop affecting people when they are indoors.

Gorfias:
And really, the idea that women need to act relatively asexually hasn't be a thing for going on 3 generations in the USA.

Slut-shaming and the like are still serious issues. Not to the extent that they have been, but to say they aren't a thing is simply untrue.

Gorfias:
If those differences are natural and of social utility, we as a society have lost something by not encouraging that difference.

Then they wouldn't be arbitrary, which I was careful to specify.

Gorfias:
Like that Captain that abandoned ship to save himself even as others in his charge may drown and die: the idea that chivalry is dead is not a useful idea.

You mean that liner that went down in the Med a few years back?

What if that captain had been a woman, and had abandoned her post and let others die? Should we give her a free pass, because not letting people under your care die is a strictly manly virtue? For that matter, should we expect a woman to be morally capable of things we'd not expect of men?

Gorfias:
Would you? I don't think I suggested you would. But can we agree men don't tend to be hairier than women by learning to be hairier? That we can then find all sorts of things that are not culturally conditioned in men?

These are leading questions meant to guide me by the nose to a pre-determined conclusion. Name me three human behaviors, not traits but behaviors, that you can confidently state have zero influence from cultural conditioning.

I am curious: do you think if you took some kind of testosterone blocker and took estrogen, would your chest hair fall off and would you then also lose any interest in porn (assuming you had an interest to begin with).

I'm going to do something unusual for the internet and honestly state that I don't know what would happen to me because I don't have a degree in medicine. I do know that hormonal imbalances have a vast litany of effects on human physiology and psychology, but without any formal education, I'd much rather leave that to someone with more expertise than me and by extension you.

Did I miss something or am I correct: there are no women in the NFL?

That's a lovely non sequitur. Do you have anything in reply to what I actually said?

Thaluikhain:
For that matter, should we expect a woman to be morally capable of things we'd not expect of men?

Unfortunately, in the US we actually do that. A lot.

BeetleManiac:

Also, let's be really clear on the strength disparity: that's horseshit. Men generally build muscle mass more easily, but muscle mass doesn't translate into brute strength. Its function is actually for physical endurance. More muscle mass can carry a load a long time before tiring out because the burden is more distributed.

Brute strength comes from muscle groups working in concert. A deadlift for example utilizes your posterior chain, core, shoulders and arms all at once. By splitting the workload like that, the body is more capable of feats of strength. And in that regard, there is no practical difference between men and women.

I don't mean to interrupt, but I was under the impression that men are, in general, stronger (you know, in a Venn Diagram, with tons of overlap sort of way)?

I mean, I certainly don't want to dismiss the existence of physically strong women, or anything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19552903_Sex_difference_in_muscular_strength_in_equally-trained_men_and_women

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
Public shaming would no longer be much of an impediment to porn usage.

A culture doesn't stop affecting people when they are indoors.

But it should have a huge impact. To my knowledge it has had virtually none.

I'd be happy to review any links that strongly suggest otherwise.

Gorfias:
Like that Captain that abandoned ship to save himself even as others in his charge may drown and die: the idea that chivalry is dead is not a useful idea.

You mean that liner that went down in the Med a few years back?

What if that captain had been a woman, and had abandoned her post and let others die? Should we give her a free pass, because not letting people under your care die is a strictly manly virtue? For that matter, should we expect a woman to be morally capable of things we'd not expect of men?

The chivalry goes with the job. In a sense, its as if this is a great argument favoring men for such positions. If it is women and children first, how can a woman captain do the chivalrous thing? Conflict of mores here.

BeetleManiac:

These are leading questions meant to guide me by the nose to a pre-determined conclusion. Name me three human behaviors, not traits but behaviors, that you can confidently state have zero influence from cultural conditioning.

Zero? I concede we don't live in a vacuum.

I am curious: do you think if you took some kind of testosterone blocker and took estrogen, would your chest hair fall off and would you then also lose any interest in porn (assuming you had an interest to begin with).

I'm going to do something unusual for the internet and honestly state that I don't know what would happen to me because I don't have a degree in medicine. I do know that hormonal imbalances have a vast litany of effects on human physiology and psychology, but without any formal education, I'd much rather leave that to someone with more expertise than me and by extension you.

I am disappointed you appear to think you need an MD to make an educated guess based upon copious amounts of information with which we are bombarded daily.

Did I miss something or am I correct: there are no women in the NFL?

That's a lovely non sequitur. Do you have anything in reply to what I actually said?

That reply was meant to point out nothing you wrote appears to have any relevance to this thread. Maybe you are trying to point out men are not stronger than women? Unless your a licensed professional body building trainer, are you sure you want to go out on a limb like this?

Thaluikhain:
For that matter, should we expect a woman to be morally capable of things we'd not expect of men?

Unfortunately, in the US we actually do that. A lot.

While it is true, is it unfortunate? As much as I'm for fairness in, say, divorce courts, I expect women to tend to be more nurturing than men. While I can't write that this is 100% not culturally influenced, it is an expectation resulting in a likely hood that the the best interests of a child are to remain with his mother. I'd think "last chance to abandon" has a lot more to do with this than a girl's mom dressing her in pink.

That's enough for now. Gotta get back to it (including gaming: humblebundle.com has a bundle of some 16 THK games for PS3 and PS4 for as little as $15. Got a lotta gaming to catch up on.)
Best regards, Gorfias

the December King:
I don't mean to interrupt, but I was under the impression that men are, in general, stronger (you know, in a Venn Diagram, with tons of overlap sort of way)?

I mean, I certainly don't want to dismiss the existence of physically strong women, or anything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19552903_Sex_difference_in_muscular_strength_in_equally-trained_men_and_women

As I said, men are predisposed to build muscle mass more easily. But in terms of raw strength and genetic potential, sex doesn't make that big a difference. The abstract in that study you cited even says that there are other factors to be considered.

Gorfias:
I am disappointed you appear to think you need an MD to make an educated guess based upon copious amounts of information with which we are bombarded daily.

Correction: I prefer to get my knowledge from proper science education and empirical data, rather than pop-science clickbait headlines.

That reply was meant to point out nothing you wrote appears to have any relevance to this thread. Maybe you are trying to point out men are not stronger than women? Unless your a licensed professional body building trainer, are you sure you want to go out on a limb like this?

I decline to venture an answer on what would happen to me from a hormonal imbalance because I don't know a lot about the endocrine system and you condescend to me for being honest. Now you want me to have a profession as a personal trainer because that apparently is the only way I could have any working knowledge of exercise science. I'm getting some mixed signals from you.

Gorfias:
While it is true, is it unfortunate?

Yes.

Gorfias:
But it should have a huge impact. To my knowledge it has had virtually none.

I'd be happy to review any links that strongly suggest otherwise.

You mean slut-shaming? If you were to go to a random guy in the US and tell them that their mother mostly wears blue, that their mother should be a schoolteacher and that their mother is a slut, one of those things could start a fight, the other two probably will not. The word "slut" is an insult, in of itself that says something.

Gorfias:
The chivalry goes with the job. In a sense, its as if this is a great argument favoring men for such positions. If it is women and children first, how can a woman captain do the chivalrous thing? Conflict of mores here.

Why should the solution be to exclude women, and not to change the mores?

BeetleManiac:

the December King:
I don't mean to interrupt, but I was under the impression that men are, in general, stronger (you know, in a Venn Diagram, with tons of overlap sort of way)?

I mean, I certainly don't want to dismiss the existence of physically strong women, or anything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19552903_Sex_difference_in_muscular_strength_in_equally-trained_men_and_women

As I said, men are predisposed to build muscle mass more easily. But in terms of raw strength and genetic potential, sex doesn't make that big a difference. The abstract in that study you cited even says that there are other factors to be considered.

Fair enough, though further perusal of studies in this area seems to turn up similar conclusions (other factors notwithstanding).

Oddly, one study I just looked at mentions that women can build muscle, proportionately, at a comparable rate to men.

Anyways, sorry to derail.

Gorfias:

The chivalry goes with the job. In a sense, its as if this is a great argument favoring men for such positions. If it is women and children first, how can a woman captain do the chivalrous thing? Conflict of mores here.

Man, that "women and children first" thing has a lot of pull for something that was never actually a rule and has only happened, like, twice in history.

altnameJag:

Gorfias:

The chivalry goes with the job. In a sense, its as if this is a great argument favoring men for such positions. If it is women and children first, how can a woman captain do the chivalrous thing? Conflict of mores here.

Man, that "women and children first" thing has a lot of pull for something that was never actually a rule and has only happened, like, twice in history.

Eh, you don't expect all those people patting themselves on the back for being noble to go onto ships that might sink? That's dangerous.

altnameJag:

Gorfias:

The chivalry goes with the job. In a sense, its as if this is a great argument favouring men for such positions. If it is women and children first, how can a woman captain do the chivalrous thing? Conflict of mores here.

Man, that "women and children first" thing has a lot of pull for something that was never actually a rule and has only happened, like, twice in history.

Titanic is an interesting case. She sank too fast for help to arrive but slow enough for that policy to be (haphazardly) implemented.

Edit: that policy wasn't there just for chivalry either. In most wrecks, women and children suffer the heaviest losses.

TL:DR; 16 shipwrecks were examined including over 15,000 passengers. Titanic and Lusitania were excluded because of abnormally high number of fatalities.

Results
Only one incident in 1852 had women have a better chance than men.
5 disasters came out on even ground
10 disasters had men do better than women.

Overall
34.7% of men survived, 17.9% of women survived.
15.3% of children survived.
Crew were 18.7% more likely to survive than passengers.
When the orders are given to abandon ship, women have a 9.6% better chance of survival.

Titanic and Lusitania were anomalies. Titanic had women survive at a much higher rate than men and Lusitania came out almost even. It should be noted Titanic took 2 hours and 40 minutes to sink while Lusitania took 18 minutes.

Fun fact: I almost posted the Daily Mail of all things but they claim, I shit you not, Captain Smith threatened to shoot any man who tried to board the lifeboats.

BeetleManiac:

the December King:
I don't mean to interrupt, but I was under the impression that men are, in general, stronger (you know, in a Venn Diagram, with tons of overlap sort of way)?

I mean, I certainly don't want to dismiss the existence of physically strong women, or anything.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19552903_Sex_difference_in_muscular_strength_in_equally-trained_men_and_women

As I said, men are predisposed to build muscle mass more easily. But in terms of raw strength and genetic potential, sex doesn't make that big a difference. The abstract in that study you cited even says that there are other factors to be considered.

We have decades of training people to the limit from childhood on. This has always resulted in stronger male athlets (barring now banned hormone cocktails). The differences start to occur in puperty, while children of both sexes are pretty even under similar training (with gils even slightly ahead at certain ages). So the difference is not cultural.

You are wrong.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Gorfias:
...there are sorts of other unlearned aspects for which there will be disparities. I don't think men, for instance, watch waaaaaay more porn than women because of something they learned.

Well this cutting parts out sure is nice

I asked you to cite the non-learned behaviors and how you determined their origin. Quite frankly you're just avoiding actually answering that. Good job roundaboutly coming back to the point that I was asking you to provide concrete examples of and still not doing so -_-

Are you writing that you think watching porn is purely a learned behavior or that you need a citation to believe this is so?

Helpful information: women do watch porn

Are you writing that you don't believe this or that you need a citation to believe this is so?

I can play dumb too if you're going to go that route.

Or would you prefer to not play childish games and admit the difference in question is amounts, something you haven't cited and that can be influenced by factors aside from just lust?

While we're on that topic, there was a thread about the chances of life and death depending on demographic. In a painfully predictable manner, the section was flooded with people moaning about feminism and not the obvious class discrimination that resulted in dramatic differences in chances of survival across class.

Worst part is no one brought up the question of who wrote the rule and implemented it. It wasn't women. So it's complaining about women being treated better than men at the behedst of men as if it's women's fault.

PainInTheAssInternet:
While we're on that topic, there was a thread about the chances of life and death depending on demographic. In a painfully predictable manner, the section was flooded with people moaning about feminism and not the obvious class discrimination that resulted in dramatic differences in chances of survival across class.

Worst part is no one brought up the question of who wrote the rule and implemented it. It wasn't women. So it's complaining about women being treated better than men at the behedst of men as if it's women's fault.

You get the same kind of nonsense in regards to the draft too. Some people will bend over backwards to make it the fault of feminists for not complaining about the draft enough. They fail to blame the people who put such rules in place or the people who support a gender divide existing on it and they go for the feminists because it's really just ammo to use.

The Decapitated Centaur:

You get the same kind of nonsense in regards to the draft too. Some people will bend over backwards to make it the fault of feminists for not complaining about the draft enough. They fail to blame the people who put such rules in place or the people who support a gender divide existing on it and they go for the feminists because it's really just ammo to use.

Interesting fact, the most visible people protesting the Great War conscription debate (which lead to two plebiscites over the course of the war) concerning Australians were women and Catholics (and Catholic women, presumably). Making Australia and South Africa the only two countries that actively fought in the Great War volunteer armies. Also, funnily enough, we still sent roughly 8.5% of the entire populace into direct conflict roles, and roughly 38.7% of all males between 18-44.

Which only goes to show you, you don't need conscription if you have marketing and psychosocial pressures to reinforce enlistment.

But yeah, no women votes in Australia and you would have had conscription (for external conflicts) during the Great War ... in which case the government learned their lesson with that, and just didn't bother putting it to a plebiscite the next time they tried to conscript people. To be fair, WW2 presented a clear and present danger so the conscription agument was more about the tyranny of Japan by '41 than about the ethics of joining a (yet another) pan-European tiff.

The Decapitated Centaur:
You get the same kind of nonsense in regards to the draft too. Some people will bend over backwards to make it the fault of feminists for not complaining about the draft enough. They fail to blame the people who put such rules in place or the people who support a gender divide existing on it and they go for the feminists because it's really just ammo to use.

It's ridiculous how easy it is to tell when a conversation is going to go to that place and what is going to be said by who. On reddit, I don't even need to read the conversations anymore. I can just have two speakers spout generic phrases and get the same effect. Though that is also true with damn near any thread.

The clock doesn't need to be turned back.
Unhealthy male/female relationships create an unhealthy society. Unhealthy societies lose the race against darwinism.
The clock will turn back itself.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here