Print

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

[Hiiri]

Uh huh... now explain how that fits into humans being a single species who constantly pass genes amongst ourselves. Or did you forgot that little fact? Maybe you'll next try to deflect into the realm of biological determinism and say that all people who fit into your narrow little worldview are the ones who become feminists, despite how views on this political stance may change throughout life.

And why the fuck is it that female feminists are only threatened while male feminists are rushing into the fray to protect them? Who can't see how horribly screwed up that view is?

Sure, the need to protect "our women" is pretty much universal, even in me. Whether it's a well-guarded harem (yes, I know they're not guarding them for women's welfare, but they're still guarding them from outside threats, as in, other men), men throwing themselves on their girlfriends in a Batman movie premiere shooting or male armies in every part of the world ("But men are more physical on average, therefore more efficient soldiers." I'm going to regret saying this, but women could be used as a cannon fodder if we didn't care for them.). Some don't seem to want to recognize this as a biological trait. Most feminists seem to want to deny evo-psy outright, which to me seems foolish. Sure, our political views drift because we're not slaves to our biology, as long as we're aware of it.

And as for your last part, I'm not sure if I understood it correct. Why aren't male feminists threatened? They most likely are, but it's not considered masculine to make a ruckus when you're in trouble. It's a sign of weakness.

But like I said, I have no competence on this subject (I doubt many of us here do either), therefore whatever I say has no real weight and you're free to dismiss it (without an insult, thank you). People seemed to take offense to the evo-psy comment, which is why I threw it out there.

One could make an evo-psy argument to why feminists scream "victim" the loudest, however.

One, as in a person who has actually studied these subjects, who is not me. (Psst, internet education does not count.)

It would be for the benefit of others, not your own.  I'll do it if others show interest.  You can parse your own grammar, if you need to convince yourself.

You just said I wasn't interested in learning more! Now I'm showing interest in what I did wrong, so I may improve. Of course it needs an outside observer to point out the errors in my behavior. But yeah, that's not the topic here.

[Helgoland]

Hiiri has been observed!
Hiiri has collapsed.

[Hiiri]

Hiiri has been observed!
Hiiri has collapsed.

Eh, what? Mumbling dark thoughts mostly.

[penguinofhonor]

Hiiri, do you have any particular reason to think none of the behavior you listed is socialized?

[Ogdibus]

.

[Helgoland]

Hiiri has been observed!
Hiiri has collapsed.

Eh, what? Mumbling dark thoughts mostly.

outside observer

Quantum physics joke, nothing to see here, move along...

[Hiiri]

Hiiri, do you have any particular reason to think none of the behavior you listed is socialized?

Sorry, language barrier. Socialized, as in brought in for the good of the society as a whole instead of a biological remnant from the past?

Can't think of any at the moment.

[kaijyuu]

I believe he means something learned, a cultural trait rather than a biological one.

Men being stoic and women being emotional is one example. It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

[Loud Whispers]

It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

Well there are numerous studies that both support and refute this. In what's grown from hunter gather societies to patriarchies, it makes sense that the males would be more emotionally reserved to be able to hunt and fight whilst the females instinctively try to care.

[Leafsnail]

Most feminists seem to want to deny evo-psy outright

Because for the most part it's useless pseudoscience that justifies stupid sexist viewpoints.  None of the assertions you've made are remotely testable, they're "just so" stories that only work if you assume they're right.

ps you lose the right to complain about personal attacks when you start an argument by personally insulting anyone who disagrees with you

[kaijyuu]

It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

Well there are numerous studies that both support and refute this. In what's grown from hunter gather societies to patriarchies, it makes sense that the males would be more emotionally reserved to be able to hunt and fight whilst the females instinctively try to care.

Well yeah, differences in expression. Men cry. Women cry. Generally speaking they do so in different situations though, and that can't entirely be explained through learning behaviors through culture.

[Graknorke]

Most feminists seem to want to deny evo-psy outright

Because for the most part it's useless pseudoscience that justifies stupid sexist viewpoints.  None of the assertions you've made are remotely testable, they're "just so" stories that only work if you assume they're right.

ps you lose the right to complain about personal attacks when you start an argument by personally insulting anyone who disagrees with you

Which one is evo-psych again? The one where they say that personality traits can be passed down through genetics if those with that trait manage to out-reproduce the others? That doesn't sound too far-fetched to me, considering that it has shown to work like that in an experiment with foxes.

[Willfor]

Does an experiment to prove the genetic passing of personality traits down though a line. Uses a family of animals that has shown the importance of early socialization to teach survival skills within that species. Presents this as evidence.

[penguinofhonor]

Sorry, language barrier. Socialized, as in brought in for the good of the society as a whole instead of a biological remnant from the past?

Can't think of any at the moment.

I believe he means something learned, a cultural trait rather than a biological one.

Men being stoic and women being emotional is one example. It's blatantly false that either gender is more emotional than the other (though there are some correlative differences in expression).

What kaijyuu said. An example is the common vision example. Men are shown to be better at tracking moving objects while women are better at color differentiation.

The evolutionary model states that this difference was developed in hunter-gatherer society where men had to track their prey, and women had to differentiate between the various berries they were gathering. The social model states that it's developed in childhood where girls are told that they need to differentiate colors as part of dealing with fashion and boys get better at tracking objects through playing sports.

To get more info on what could cause this this, there have been studies done on societies that don't have any societal color differentiation like we do, and they've shown that both sexes are equally terrible at it there. This would seem to show that there's nothing genetic causing it or the bias would exist in the absence of societal reinforcement.

It's my opinion that most of the commonly claimed evolutionary differences between the sexes are like this. I read more every day about how even things that we've taken for granted to be genetics are hugely reliant on social factors, like handedness, and I find it really hard to believe that men's and women's brains are really that hardwired to be different.

[Graknorke]

Does an experiment to prove the genetic passing of personality traits down though a line. Uses a family of animals that has shown the importance of early socialization to teach survival skills within that species. Presents this as evidence.

I thought humans also have an importance on socialisation to teach skills, or at least, human babies sure do learn a lot from those who raise them.
And I still don't get what your point is. How does that make the experiment that Dmitri Belyaev did any less valid? Throwing sarcasm at me doesn't really explain what your problem with it is, it just makes you look like you're calling me stupid.