Print

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

[TD1]

A cis-gendered man has never had the experience of being a woman. It would be like a white dude telling black dudes what it is like to be black.

That is rather racist. There is no difference between a black person and a white person, other than colour and small physical things.

No, what you just said is erasure. There is a big difference with regards to what a black man experiences day to day and what a white man experiences. Our society is inherently built around the dominance of white males. You are welcome to ask any black man if he thinks there is a difference between how people and society treat him and how they treat white men, and I can make a good guess at what he will tell you.

One example, you are an awful lot less likely to get shot by the police while unarmed as a white man.

You compared the difference between man and woman to the difference between races. You can raise a girl just like a man, but in the end they'll want different things. Raise a black like a white and you get a black person who doesn't adhere to stupid stereotypes, and vice versa. Plus, what it is to be "black" differs the further up the social scale you go. London toughs are different from London bankers. Well, maybe not that different...

Granted, you probably could raise a Tom Boy. However, there is a chemical difference between man and woman, suggesting it's not all that likely.

Yea, that's pretty sexist. And actually racist. Because black people don't adhere to stereotypes regardless.

Women do not like dresses and pumps and babies and pink by virtue of estrogen. None of that is in our dna.

I assure you, as a woman, I am not fond of any of those, except maybe pink. I don't like shopping or movies about relationships. None of these things are inherently female. These are what a patriarchal society tells us women should like. This does not make me a "tom boy" incidentally, it makes me a woman. Because that is what I am. A woman may choose to like or not like these things at her discretion, but nothing makes her actions more or less woman-y.

The chemical difference between men and women doesn't change the fact that we are all individuals. And it definitely doesn't cause us to adhere to specific gender roles. Gender roles are a societal construct. Anything that would be deeply affected by our hormones isn't that big of a deal because we are creatures capable of logic and reason, and we are not in anyway bound by the estrogen, testosterone, or other hormones floating about in our system. And those hormones definitely don't have any sort of specific preferences to colors or clothing or any type of toy.

No. Men and women are different, in general. Individually, there are differences and a woman may act however she pleases, same with a man. I never mentioned pink, or pumps, or what have you. Those are merely fashion statements. I am talking inclination. Testosterone, for example, may cause males to be more aggressive than women.

[Descan]

Dwarfy, it's not about how they are raised or childhood.

It's about lived experiences. The lived experience of being a modern black person versus a modern white person. And the lived experience of being a woman versus a man. Regardless of where those differences come from, whether chemical/psychological or societal/cultural, they are still differences, and it is the same issue of telling other people how they themselves experience life.

[Knit tie]

what have I unleashed

[Descan]

probably puppies

puppies are awesome

[GiglameshDespair]

People.

Stahp.

Make it a new topic or something before the thread gets locked.

[smeeprocket]

A cis-gendered man has never had the experience of being a woman. It would be like a white dude telling black dudes what it is like to be black.

That is rather racist. There is no difference between a black person and a white person, other than colour and small physical things.

No, what you just said is erasure. There is a big difference with regards to what a black man experiences day to day and what a white man experiences. Our society is inherently built around the dominance of white males. You are welcome to ask any black man if he thinks there is a difference between how people and society treat him and how they treat white men, and I can make a good guess at what he will tell you.

One example, you are an awful lot less likely to get shot by the police while unarmed as a white man.

You compared the difference between man and woman to the difference between races. You can raise a girl just like a man, but in the end they'll want different things. Raise a black like a white and you get a black person who doesn't adhere to stupid stereotypes, and vice versa. Plus, what it is to be "black" differs the further up the social scale you go. London toughs are different from London bankers. Well, maybe not that different...

Granted, you probably could raise a Tom Boy. However, there is a chemical difference between man and woman, suggesting it's not all that likely.

Yea, that's pretty sexist. And actually racist. Because black people don't adhere to stereotypes regardless.

Women do not like dresses and pumps and babies and pink by virtue of estrogen. None of that is in our dna.

I assure you, as a woman, I am not fond of any of those, except maybe pink. I don't like shopping or movies about relationships. None of these things are inherently female. These are what a patriarchal society tells us women should like. This does not make me a "tom boy" incidentally, it makes me a woman. Because that is what I am. A woman may choose to like or not like these things at her discretion, but nothing makes her actions more or less woman-y.

The chemical difference between men and women doesn't change the fact that we are all individuals. And it definitely doesn't cause us to adhere to specific gender roles. Gender roles are a societal construct. Anything that would be deeply affected by our hormones isn't that big of a deal because we are creatures capable of logic and reason, and we are not in anyway bound by the estrogen, testosterone, or other hormones floating about in our system. And those hormones definitely don't have any sort of specific preferences to colors or clothing or any type of toy.

No. Men and women are different, in general. Individually, there are differences and a woman may act however she pleases, same with a man. I never mentioned pink, or pumps, or what have you. Those are merely fashion statements. I am talking inclination. Testosterone, for example, may cause males to be more aggressive than women.

Do you feel you are entirely controlled by your emotions or hormones? That they define who you are, how you behave, and what you like?

I don't. I'm a fairly aggressive person, far more than my boyfriend, for example. My solution to most problems is to run at them face first while flailing my fists (metaphorically, of course, I'm too old to be getting in fights anymore.)

I know some pretty aggressive women, and I also know the field of science is a boy's club. I'm not saying that study is wrong, what I am saying is the human penis has been fully mapped out for a very long time, but the human clitoris was only mapped out fully in the past couple of years. So yea, I take the male/female studies with a grain of salt. I'm sure there's plenty of science in there, I just think it's... slightly tinted by the perspective of the scientists.

[smeeprocket]

Sorry guys, I didn't realize this would get the thread closed as long as it was civil. :/

[TD1]

People.

Stahp.

Make it a new topic or something before the thread gets locked.

Ha, fair enough.

Smee, I'll not reply to that for the sake of the greater good, hehe.

Edit: Smee ninja'd me.

[Eric Blank]

what have I unleashed

A dumbass argument.

I wonder if Descan and dwarfy1 realize they aren't even on the same subject.

dwarfy is clearly discussing the fact that in reality, without external influence of "society", men and women will often behave differently because of how hormones cause us to behave, and men and women produce different amounts of various hormones. He is correct: without other people telling them what to do and how to behave, men and women will still behave slightly differently because of the way our hormones affect our behavior.
He was also correct when he stated that people of different ethnicities, without the influence of other people, will behave the same.

Descan is also correct that human societies attach different demands to people depending on various factors, and that because of this people will be trained to act a certain way, which may not coincide with how they would naturally behave.

Sorry guys, I didn't realize this would get the thread closed as long as it was civil. :/

Internet forums cant keep political and social discussions civil 99% of the time.

[TD1]

Heh, I hadn't even seen Descan's post.

[Descan]

I know. :I

[Graknorke]

it's funny because I never said there was anything wrong with liking those things. And there isn't. That just happens to be what society tells us to like. Plenty of my friends are homemakers and mothers. It doesn't make them any less feminist, but your assumption was I would think that because of your own stereotypes of feminists.

For clarification I wasn't saying you had those opinions.
I was giving an answer to the question that I reckon Knit tie was asking, which was somewhat different to the one written.

[IronTomato]

I thought I was going to be able to charge in yelling "Shut ya fockin moufs" but I was a little too late.

Nice job?

[Orange Wizard]

I saw the word patriarchy and turned off for a few minutes. Did I miss anything?

[Knit tie]

I saw the word patriarchy and turned off for a few minutes. Did I miss anything?

Not really.

First, I wrote a post about how Anatoly Karlin, with whose blog "Da Russophile" I agreed and whom I considered to be a admirable human being, has lost about 85% of the respect I held for him after I discovered his spectacularly sexist, rude and barkingly insane string of posts about "gender relations", for which he appears to not be regretful to any significant extent, and also his penchant for the pseudoscientific quasi-racial theory of human IQ corresponding to criminality, which he gleefully accepts as true without his usual scepticism pointing him the many holes in it. I also said that the rest of his posts on gender are, while in no way exceptional, at least readable, rational and not misogynistic, if gender-role conservative.

Then, smeeprocket joined in and started condemning rapists, I tried to retort that the "readable" posts I've mentioned also condemned rape, while Lord Slowpoke accused smeeprocket of using logical fallacies, Descan and Dwarfy had one of their usual squabbles, scrdest further condemned mr. Karlin's position, Dutchling provided a link to some of Reddit's madness, Graknorke was the only one to get my joke about overly radical feminism, GilgameshDespair called everyone to stop before the Toad came and Eric Blank pointed out that Descan's and Dwarfy's argument wasn't even them talking to each other, but rather just unloading their viewpoints onto the web.