Print

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

[TD1]

Sorry to dig this up, but it was buggin' me while I was reading through the thread.

That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.

A Trichotomy is what that is.

And with that point of pedantry, I'm going to sit and watch where this goes before butting in.

Its no problem, I don't mind corrections. xD

IT'S no problem XD

[Neonivek]

Are there any cases in the current world where you've seen things occur that have been both 'against the female gender' and positive in general to the human race, and that feminists have reacted negatively to?

Voting against affirmative action for women in science and engineering fields is I'm sure a real life example that many individual universities have gone through. Which I think fits the description. Bad for women, clearly -- it's always bad for your group not to get as much free stuff, that seems clear. I argue good for society, though, since we want our national experts in things to be the best experts they can be, and affirmative action can undermine that.

I'm not saying women can't make good scientists and engineers. I'm saying that some individuals could make brilliant ones, but they can ALREADY get accepted without affirmative action.

Whereas the majority could also potentially have made great engineers, but the culture in the home from their parents convinced them they can't be and to make different choices of classwork and extracurriculars and hobbies and by the end of high school it may be too practically late. That's where the problem is and where it would need to be solved. Not by just pretending that people were raised differently and prepared for fields differently than they were.

My opinion on engendered and racial laws (as in laws that apply ONLY to specific races and genders) is that they exist to be removed.

That should always be the goal whenever one of those are enacted. It might take years or decades but still.

Some people have this idea that things like that should be permanent.

also WOW this has so far been the most civil gender discussion we ever had... >_>

[Orange Wizard]

That's because I stopped posting


Anyway, protests only really effect change when said change is already in the public mindset. When a major protest is an expression of how a significant number of people think or feel, it will have a much more powerful effect than if the protest was organised by a vocal minority.

[GavJ]

That's because I stopped posting


Anyway, protests only really effect change when said change is already in the public mindset. When a major protest is an expression of how a significant number of people think or feel, it will have a much more powerful effect than if the protest was organised by a vocal minority.

This particular issue though is a great example of how that might not quite be true though.
Women are always the majority. Yet will never be much MORE than the majority, because biology.

So it's an especially interesting example of where "voting for/lobbying for group specific interest" might be able to pass bills consistently without ever necessarily being in the actual full national interest (pretending that women's political power is equal per capita here for a moment in a hypothetical future)

[Orange Wizard]

Women are always the majority. Yet will never be much MORE than the majority, because biology.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible for birth rates (or infant mortality) to shift in favour of males. Again, never much more than the majority, but majority nonetheless.

It's also important to remember that any major change will always have groups opposing it. See abortion/gay rights/apartheid etc., and though those movements succeeded, there always were (and are) people wanting them to fail.
Communism in Russia was very successful (at least before Stalin came along) because it heavily favoured the blue-collar worker, who made up the majority of the population.
So if we apply this principle of majorities overwhelming the minorities, I wouldn't trust he chances of any kind of female-supremacy based social shift getting off the ground. As others have said, the feminists/women/people who make up that group are largely insignificant.

[GavJ]

It's more likely for women to be in majorities, because they have fewer genetic defects due to XX sex redundant chromosomes, allowing them "spares" if one is messed up.

But regardless, you can still easily run into this issue just from getting more women to vote proportionally, etc. Or men. It's been a fundamental concern throughout history that "majority vote" doesn't always mean "best choice for the nation" because sometimes the majority vote represents a majority voting group that is just voting to help itself knowingly at the expense of other groups.

So protests only being successful when the majority power bloc agrees with them isn't terribly comforting or a great guarantee of them being just causes.

[Neonivek]

I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.

[Samarkand]

I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.

Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.

[TD1]

I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.

Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.

On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.

[Neonivek]

I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.

Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.

On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.

I am going to assume you are excluding the baby.

It just depends on your definition of "man" anyhow. I still remember the "man who gave birth" but who, to my knowledge, was a hermaphrodite.

[Samarkand]

I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.

Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.

On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.

I... I'm not even sure how to respond to this... Is no woman ever died of prostrate cancer appropriate? And... what are you arguing with me about?? It was a factual statement about population ratios, mostly unrelated to the feminism discussion...

I'm terribly, terribly confused.

[TD1]

I'm not arguing

Not everything's an argument, lol.

[Neonivek]

I'm not arguing

Not everything's an argument, lol.

Welcome to my world!

To admit it is my fault because sometimes I'll just go "well this isn't true, it actually is this" and it is just one point of someone's incredibly long speech.

Doesn't help that sometimes I'll just pick apart a few premises and go "there, thus your argument is invalid"... And that I havn't had a few irrational outbursts before >_>

I've considered whether or not I should be trying hard to be an intelligent held-together person on this forum... or whether I should just be closer to myself and say what is on my mind unfiltered because it is more honest... and I tend to go with the second

[Rolepgeek]

I'mma say right now that I hope you don't think engendered laws regarding biology and pregnancies in particular or laws that prohibit hate crimes are laws that 'exist to be removed', Neonivek. I'm hoping you meant other laws of the sort...but I don't know.

Also, in all honesty, I've always wondered if the gender ratios were like that because men were more likely to serve in a military capacity than women.

Then I remembered that more women die of domestic abuse each year than die in military service and law enforcement combined.

And then I realized that probably wasn't the case.

[Neonivek]

Ok, I don't mean laws that deal with things that ONLY can happen to women (well MOSTLY!) like the protection if a woman suffers from post-pardem depression, heck maternity leave has become unisex where I live (as in a man can file for maternity leave).

But yeah I do honestly believe things like "laws that prevent hate crimes" are laws that exist to be removed, I do believe that laws that ensure women who are equal to a male applicant are hired is a law that exists to be removed.

Don't get me wrong I am not arguing against the necessity... I am saying I never saw these laws as permanent laws but rather temporary.

Note: I have a feeling I might have to explain what "exist to be removed" means later... but whatever.