Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

While that is very true of WWII Germany, I do think civilization has moved on a bit to the point where these days it is pretty safe to say that anybody identifying as a Nazi would have a thing about the Jews.

[Reelya]

Ba dum tss

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now

Isn't that article about men having wired protection for children rather than women?

Relevant:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177709
"FSH and testosterone levels were lower in men in love, while women of the same group presented higher testosterone levels."

While googling around for info on the topic, I found something truly horrifying.

[Reelya]

The testosterone boost for women is in the early stage of a romance. I'd link that to increased sex drive. For men, the drop makes him less aggressive, brings out more lovey-dovey side.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/men/13-surprising-facts-about-testosterone-1
It only lasts a few months according to the studies, which gels well with the well-known "honeymoon period" of relationships. so the boost to female testosterone should be finished by the time she has a baby.

[Max White]

So what you are saying is wait at least 24 months for the chemicals to wear off to make sure you are still attached to the person in question before tying the knot.

[Reelya]

Sorry, other sites say 3 months for the boost. One site says "back to normal" after "one to two years". My take on that is there's a big spike in the first 3 months, then it gradually resettles. Also, the studies that say "years" might have only tested participants every 12 months, so they might not be that fine-grained to measure fall-off rates.

I think it's just to get baby-making going in the first place. Some people are serial-daters, e.g. addicted to that feeling you get in the first few months of a relationship: possibly it's the hormone changes they're addicted to. They tend to break up and move onto different people once the "magic" is gone.

[misko27]

Godwin's Law tangent:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Remember there was more to the Nazi party than just racism. That was a big part (everyone loved to blame their problems on minorities those days), but it's very conceivable that many Nazi members bought the non-racist propaganda and tolerated/didn't care about the racist stuff.

It's kinda like being a Republican in Arizona. Not all the Republican members condone all the shit Hispanics get there, but want the other things the Republican party stands for.


Now, this doesn't absolve everything; complacency isn't free from guilt (far from it). It's just less racism and more apathy toward other's suffering when they could've fought against it.

I would disagree.

Spoiler: Spoiler because Nazis (click to show/hide)

Nazism wasn't just "jews are evil", it was a whole race-based culture system. They had a whole sliding scale of purity, and they were absolutely adamant on the idea that "race made destiny". and it was only because of their German race that they had a mandate to wealth and power. Sure, there were supporters who didn't believe in the race aspect, and some who called themselves Nazis and didn't believe in it, but it was an integral part of it. It wasn't "Blah Blah Blah, Oh and we really hate jews", it was "We can take the foreign racial oppressors out of your life and reassert your rightful place in the world". You couldn't be knowledgeable about the Nazis and not know how important race was to them. Race was their clarion call, their answer to everything. It's less "pro-immigration republican", and more, say, "anti-corporate republican", or an "anti-constitution republican".

Nazism, or at least the actual theories of Nazism, literally was basically organized racism. It was racism as a refined ideology with tenets and pseudo-science and political backings. It was the nationalism, the "work together to support the German state!", the perceived right to conquer what was rightfully the German people's. To be sure, many who supported were simply happy about the many, many positive changes the Nazis had on their collapsing country. But they were voting with their stomachs, and you can't call them believers in anything then success and a dictator's charisma.

That is why Nazism is evil. There is almost nothing you can say in defense of it. It was by nature backward, cultish, violent, hateful, prideful, nationalistic to an absurd degree, regressive, pseudo-religious, pseudo-scientific. It was all of modern racism and hate culture rolled together, forced into tight marching order, and put in charge of a declining country in an hour of need that no one else would heed. It's virtues and successes are only outgrowths of racial theory: Any pride in your country was because of your proud race, and honor came from your own noble line. Any stray virtue of fascist theory there might have been was instead corrupted by racial theory.

Nazis didn't simply hate jews. They are the Jew-haters. They deigned themselves anointed by god to eradicate Jewish blood both from within and without. They created elaborate formulas to determine how Aryan you were, and had another for how contaminated you are for having a Jewish grandparent. They sent expeditions to distant areas where Aryans might have ended up. If I may be so bold, they are racism.

Wikipedia has links: Nazism Nazism and Race I particularly urge you to check out the general Nazism page, where they describe as "a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and anti-Semitism"

Ba dum tss

Will return with a bunch of other shit if the conversation continues, but until then I'm out for now

Isn't that article about men having wired protection for children rather than women?

Relevant:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177709
"FSH and testosterone levels were lower in men in love, while women of the same group presented higher testosterone levels."

While googling around for info on the topic, I found something truly horrifying.

Interesting. Males have less need for that testosterone.

[Reelya]

Interesting. Males have less need for that testosterone.

Spoiler: testosterone-related (click to show/hide)

Actually, there are other studies looking at male testosterone and success in life in general. Men with higher exposure to fetal testosterone - which correlates closely with relative finger length, make more money. So, you can guesstimate how much money a guy will make by the length of his freaking fingers, something unlikely to be related to social discrimination.

Male stock market traders have been measured for testosterone. It goes up after they make a big profit, but also, if they have higher testosterone in the morning of a day, they make more money later in the afternoon. Plus, men with higher testosterone are apparently more likely to get a women and have children, even if their levels drop afterwards.

So, it's not just "high: good, low:bad" or vice-versa, levels fluctuate for good reasons for both men and women, different behaviors are optimal at different times.

On another track: I've been looking at what's called "heightism". Apparently every inch in height, for men, correlates to an extra $950 per year (in the USA) in average earnings. For two adult men with a height difference of 5 inches, the average difference in height between male and female, that's pretty close to the gender divide on wages.

Also, short men who are assertive are often accused of having a Napoleon complex and being pushy. Similar to how assertive women are viewed.

But it's not just external prejudice: the height you were as a child is more highly associated with the difference than your adult height, e.g. compare two 6 foot adult men, where one of them was shorter than the other as a child, that one earns significantly less per year than the one who was taller as a child.

This shows how people can internalize prejudices, since there is basically no way to rationalize two 6 foot men being discriminated by outside forces. One theory is that taller and larger children are treat by their peers more as if they were an older peer, rather than a same-age peer, they thus are automatically afforded more respect and deferred to as group leaders. This is important i think, because it may be an important part of what we see as the gender divide, as well.

[Helgoland]

So the whole thing's justified? That doesn't explain the discrimination of women, though, because the internalization wouldn't work the same way for them.

[Vector]

Also, girls grow faster than boys... they're taller until boys hit puberty.

[kaijyuu]

@Misko

We're probably splitting hairs here. I was mostly thinking of people like Oskar Schindler (and the other opportunists who might not of had a conscience) when I wrote that post.

[Helgoland]

Well, there were actually quite a few people who were attracted by the 'socialist' part. They tended to become disappointed rather quickly.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, and a lot of the crazy racist stuff was unknown to or ignored by the majority until it was too late. I mean, it's not what they emphazised the most in their election campaigns. Certainly a fatal ignorance, but appearing at least somewhat moderate was part of Nazi tactics before they were in power.

[Reelya]

-double post-

[Reelya]

So the whole thing's justified? That doesn't explain the discrimination of women, though, because the internalization wouldn't work the same way for them.

Justified? How do you get that? Outlining one type of discrimination doesn't mean other types of discrimination are "o.k". It's not like if someone counted the number of women in car accidents, then mentioning that some men also get in car accidents makes women being hurt in car accidents "cool" or something. Mentioning the height-pay-gap no more "justifies" the gender pay gap than does mentioning the black pay gap.

What is does show, is that heightism is a form of discrimination with measurable effects on the individual on a comparable scale to those of racism, sexism. Except it's not socially acceptable for heightism-affected individuals to complain about it.

What I did mention was that "Short Man Syndrome" a.k.a. "Napoleon Complex", is coded in similar language and biases to those against women who are assertive. There are feminist writers who believe the two types of discrimination are intrinsically linked, i.e. you can untangle one without the other.

And internalization of one type of discrimination gives added credence to other types of discrimination, aka stereotype threat. Though the stereotypes coded for are different, the mechanism is likely to be similar.

[Helgoland]

But it's not just external prejudice: the height you were as a child is more highly associated with the difference than your adult height, e.g. compare two 6 foot adult men, where one of them was shorter than the other as a child, that one earns significantly less per year than the one who was taller as a child.

This shows how people can internalize prejudices, since there is basically no way to rationalize two 6 foot men being discriminated by outside forces. One theory is that taller and larger children are treat by their peers more as if they were an older peer, rather than a same-age peer, they thus are automatically afforded more respect and deferred to as group leaders. This is important i think, because it may be an important part of what we see as the gender divide, as well.

This is what I meant by 'justified'. Originally unfounded discrimination becomes valid selection because the discrimination has changed the individual.