PETA just grossed me out!!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't care about being classy. I've already said that I plan on making this thread go to 500 for the purpose of making you all look like as big of idiots as possible.

Unfortunately, you're the only one who thinks we look like idiots.

And I have read Imran's statements. Repeatedly. Somehow, I think you're falling deeply in to the sarchasm, since I'm picking up his wink-wink-nudge-nudge fine.

Of course, then you say other people need to read your things carefully, when you don't even bother to use qualifiers or modifiers to properly signify any nuance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Raise your hand if you think Kidicious often speaks in absolutes.

* Lorizael raises hand.

You think that despite the fact that I've told you that I'm not, in this case and in many others.

Oh, I don't want to call you an idiot though. That would be wrong.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Oh, I don't want to call you an idiot though. That would be wrong.

You don't want to call Lorizael an idiot? What makes him any different?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Unfortunately, you're the only one who thinks we look like idiots.

And I have read Imran's statements. Repeatedly. Somehow, I think you're falling deeply in to the sarchasm, since I'm picking up his wink-wink-nudge-nudge fine.

Of course, then you say other people need to read your things carefully, when you don't even bother to use qualifiers or modifiers to properly signify any nuance.

I don't care if it's sarcastic or not. It's the argument. What you are trying to do is make the argument out to be something that it's not. Now address the argument or come up with something else to say. But I won't let you change this one.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't care if it's sarcastic or not. It's the argument. What you are trying to do is make the argument out to be something that it's not. Now address the argument or come up with something else to say. But I won't let you change this one.

I've been changing the arguments, Mr. Moving Goalpost?

Imran's "men" wasn't quite serious. If you can't tell that, it's no wonder you keep missing all of the other nuances in the thread.

On the other hand, you haven't answered why your first assumption regarding Elok's GF was that she was a self-hating female. The only explanation I can come up with that, particularly when there was no evidence suggesting that conclusion, is that of projection.

It's your statements that suggest that women should be nurturing, and that Elok's GF is somehow an aberration, and somehow less of a woman, not Imran's.

What evidence you have used to try to suggest your position on that matter is that women are biologically prone to being more 'nurturing' and 'sensitive', using a very deterministic view of nature versus nurture, something which most biologists, psychologist, anthropologists, and sociologists now think is a gross oversimplification of how behaviors are formed.

You have also failed to answer why your notion that everyone needs to be more 'sensitive' and 'nurturing', which are traditionally linked with feminine behavior patterns; you've failed to explain why it's necessarily better to act in such fashions; indeed, you've failed to even address the fact that your statements are themselves somewhat sexist, because you're not demanding equality with diversity, but a monocultural equality, of sameness.

[Elok]

Please be advised that this thread has now escalated to the level of "profoundly silly," and adjust your plans for it accordingly. Thank you.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Elok
Please be advised that this thread has now escalated to the level of "profoundly silly," and adjust your plans for it accordingly. Thank you.

Hasn't it always been like that? PETA is like a strangelet when it comes to any sort of discourse. They reduce everything to being as profoundly ridiculous as they are.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
You don't want to call Lorizael an idiot? What makes him any different?

Yeah, what's with that? I call myself an idiot pretty much every day.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You think that despite the fact that I've told you that I'm not, in this case and in many others.

Also, this just isn't true. You have stated, in past discussions, that you only speak in absolutes. You're damn sure your opinion is correct, and you want to convince others of this, so you make big, declarative statements that, as Q Cubed said, don't allow for nuance.

Originally posted by Kidicious
The thing is I only make general statements.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

I've been changing the arguments, Mr. Moving Goalpost?

Imran's "men" wasn't quite serious. If you can't tell that, it's no wonder you keep missing all of the other nuances in the thread.

Let's leave that up to Imran to say, shall we. If he does then we can consider that good, since we both agree that what he was saying is total crap.

On the other hand, you haven't answered why your first assumption regarding Elok's GF was that she was a self-hating female. The only explanation I can come up with that, particularly when there was no evidence suggesting that conclusion, is that of projection.

The only evidence that I present is that she's like an oreo cookie. She's a strange feminist in that she doesn't like women (generally). You don't find that strange.

If it's proof you want I don't have any, but then I don't really particularly care about Elok's GF. This isn't really about her personally.

It's your statements that suggest that women should be nurturing, and that Elok's GF is somehow an aberration, and somehow less of a woman, not Imran's.

What evidence you have used to try to suggest your position on that matter is that women are biologically prone to being more 'nurturing' and 'sensitive', using a very deterministic view of nature versus nurture, something which most biologists, psychologist, anthropologists, and sociologists now think is a gross oversimplification of how behaviors are formed.

You have also failed to answer why your notion that everyone needs to be more 'sensitive' and 'nurturing', which are traditionally linked with feminine behavior patterns; you've failed to explain why it's necessarily better to act in such fashions; indeed, you've failed to even address the fact that your statements are themselves somewhat sexist, because you're not demanding equality with diversity, but a monocultural equality, of sameness.

This is a good time to mention Feminist Economics.

The Principles of Feminist Economics

3. The Household is a locus of economic activity.

Mankiw’s list focuses overly on the individual and individual decisions, and "the household has traditionally been out of the purview of economics" (Schor 1992, 84). Yet no economic actor makes decisions in a vacuum, as is often implied in neoclassical principles. For example, Mankiw believes that "trade can make everyone better off." Mankiw implies that the efficiency gains from specialization and trade enhance global efficiency and thereby make everyone better off. But the world is filled with examples of free trade making many people worse off. In Africa, specialization in the cultivation of a single cash crop for export in many countries made these countries extremely vulnerable to price fluctuations, weather patterns, and pests. In countries such as Kenya, men generally controlled the earnings from cash crops while women were still expected to provide food and clothing for the household, their traditional role in the African family, along with labor to produce cash crops. Thus women suffered significantly from the transition away from subsistence food production towards specialization and trade.

A more balanced approach to the issue of trade would examine how real people—men, women and children—have been affected by trade patterns around the globe. The simplistic principle that "trade can make everyone better off" must be transformed into a debate about the merits of trade from a number of different perspectives. In this discussion, the analyst must consider those who do not make decisions and how they are affected by the decisions of others. As Randy Albelda (1997, 161) notes, current economic analysis primarily focuses on those goods sold in the marketplace for profit, but "All other economic activities that also take place and are necessary in capitalism—the production and allocation of goods and services in households, communities, the nonprofit sector, and governments—are theoretical afterthoughts." The neglect of the household in economic analysis is a serious shortcoming which is corrected within feminist economics, where the household is treated as an important economic institution. As Juliet Schor (1992, 85) observes, "Food preparation, child rearing, laundry services, house cleaning, the transportation of people, care of the sick and elderly, the acquisition of goods and services (shopping), gardening and lawn care, home and car maintenance and repair, and financial accounting are all services typically produced in American homes." Households engage in market and non-market activities that are economic in nature.



4. Non-market activities are important to the economy.

Once it is acknowledged that the household is a locus of economic activity, it also becomes apparent that unpaid work, such as the raising of children and all household work, is an essential aspect of any economy which must be recognized. This has become a particularly important issue as more and more women have entered the workforce while still bearing primary responsibility for household duties. For example, Barbara Bergmann (1986, 266) notes how this trend inhibits true gender equality in terms of hours worked:

One way to achieve equity between the sexes—very possibly the only way—would be for women and men to take similar economic roles. By social custom husbands and wives would do the same amount of family-care work and devote the same time and energy to paid employment. The data we have on labor-force participation and time use shows that wives are moving in that direction; they are spending more time in employment and doing less housework. However, husbands are not meeting them halfway.

In fact, as Juliet Schor (1992, 103) observes, "Women are still doing about twice as much housework as men." This ongoing problem has important economic consequences. Since women still must bear more than their share of household work, even if both husband and wife work, women are less able to take jobs that require long hours, which in part helps to explain the existence of the glass ceiling.



5. Power relationships are important in an economy.

Mankiw and other standard principles of economics texts ignore the power relationships that exist within the economy, but understanding the effects of power on economics is crucial to comprehending the actual functioning of markets, especially labor markets. In neoclassical texts, the sale of labor is viewed as a mutually beneficial exchange that benefits both parties. No mention is made of the power inequities in the exchange which tend to give the employer power over the employee. Nor is any mention made of the particular difficulties that confront women in the workplace. Understanding power and patriarchy helps us to analyze how male-dominated economic institutions actually function and why women are often at a disadvantage in the workplace.

Power also is crucial in understanding the economic issues surrounding the sexual division of labor in the family. Barbara Bergmann has established "that any person who specializes in nonmarket work not only becomes vulnerable to the abuse of a more powerful partner, but also faces a high economic risk in the event of marital dissolution" (Folbre 1998, 163). Power and patriarchy contain an economic dimension that is explored in feminist economic analysis, but is ignored in Mankiw.

The problem isn't that women are nurturing. The problem is that they are oppressed for it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Also, this just isn't true. You have stated, in past discussions, that you only speak in absolutes. You're damn sure your opinion is correct, and you want to convince others of this, so you make big, declarative statements that, as Q Cubed said, don't allow for nuance.

You're as dumb as a rock. This isn't about thinking I'm right. This is about either talking about gender as a whole group or a majority of individuals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Citation, please.


I'm saying your language, and the way you've phrased your comments, can easily be used by those who are sexist to justify their sexist beliefs.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're talking about the second part of my statement.

Psychology

Some studies show that males are more inclined to risky behavior than femalesIn one large scale study, most cognitive abilities and psychological traits showed little or no average difference between the sexes [4]. Where sex differences exist, there is often considerable overlap between the sexes[5]; in addition, it is unclear how many of these differences hold true across different cultures. Nevertheless, certain trends tend to be found.


[edit] Risk taking
In many situations, men are more prone to taking risks.[6] Careers of men are often more dangerous because of this. They have higher accident rates than women and even driving accidents. Men also have a higher rate of promiscuous sexual relations.[dubious – discuss][7]


[edit] Personality tests
In the big five personality traits, women score higher in Agreeableness (tendency to be compassionate and cooperative) and Neuroticism (tendency to feel anxiety, anger, and depression).[citation needed]
Demographics of MBTI surveys indicate that 60-75% of women prefer feeling and 55-80% of men prefer thinking.[8][9]

[edit] Aggression
Main article: Aggression
Males are generally more aggressive than females (Coi & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005). There is evidence that males are quicker to aggression (Frey et al 2003) and more likely than females to express their aggression physically (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994). However, some researchers (such as Rachel Simmons) have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hines and Saudino 2003). For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.


[edit] Systematizing and empathizing
Females score higher on self-report scales of empathy, on samples ranging from school-age children to adults. Empathy scales include measures of perspective taking, orientation towards another person, empathic concern, and personal distress. However, such measures are subjective and empathy may be more related to gender role rather than sex.[10]

Simon Baron-Cohen's EQ SQ Theory claims that, in general, men are better at systematizing (the desire to analyze and explore systems and rules) and that women are better at empathizing (the ability to identify with other people’s feelings). More males than females are diagnosed with autism and Asperger syndrome. According to Cohen, since autistic and Asperger individuals are very high in systematizing, albeit often in a manner which is hyperfocused, and may even oversimplify more complex systems due to missing certain details, and very low in empathizing as well, they are examples of an "extreme male brain." [11]


[edit] Intelligence
Main article: Sex and intelligence
Many recent studies have concluded that IQ performances of men and women vary little.[6][7][8][9]. However, one researcher in the United Kingdom, Richard Lynn, has authored research showing advantages to men of variable statistical significance.[10][11] Other studies show a greater variance in the IQ performance of men compared to that of women, i.e. men are more represented at the extremes of performance, and less represented at the median.[8][12][13]


[edit] Communication
Deborah Tannen’s studies found these gender differences in communication styles:[12]

Men tend to talk more than women in public situations, but women tend to talk more than men at home.
Females are more inclined to face each other and make eye contact when talking, while males are more likely to look away from each other.
Boys tend to jump from topic to topic, but girls tend to talk at length about one topic.
When listening, women make more noises such as “mm-hmm” and “uh-huh”, while men are more likely to listen silently.
Women are inclined to express agreement and support, while men are more inclined to debate.
The studies also reported that in general both sexes communicated in similar ways [13]. Critics, including Suzette Haden Elgin, have suggested that Tannen's findings may apply more to women of certain specific cultural and economic groups than to women in general. Although it is widely believed that women speak far more words than men, this is actually not the case.Today, 2007

URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences#Psychology]Gender differences[/URL]

There's the study that found that women are bettter investors because men get sexually aroused when investing and take too many risks.[

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This is about either talking about gender as a whole group or a majority of individuals.

In either case you're perpetuating sexism.

It's just not useful to associate certain behaviors with certain sexes. The only useful thing you can do is say that people with two X chromosomes tend to exhibit these particular traits because of the presence of these particular genes and because of the way they are raised in society.

By conducting studies like this, we can help determine how certain behaviors, personalities, and attitudes develop in society. If these behaviors are definitively useful, we can teach them and spread. If they are definitively hurtful, we can discourage them.

What you're doing is of no benefit to feminism. Taking a bunch of random traits, associating them with women, and declaring them to be some sort of moral system only perpetuates sexism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
In either case you're perpetuating sexism.

This is better than Imran blaming his mother for sexism by preparing meals for him in the kitchen.

Look, you if you can't handle the truth about men and women it's because there's something wrong with you. Let the whole truth be known, and if it is it will lead to a better society. Stop trying to deny that men and society are oppressive. I can see nothing good coming from that.

[Lorizael]

When did I deny that some men and much of society can be oppressive at times?