Oh no! It seems that the science isn't quite settled here! It seems that socialization DOES have an effect! No, it's settled. Boys are more interested in things, girls in people, and this is not due to socialization https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Social Justice people like to think that it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to determine to what degree nature and nurture influence behavior, and advocate that we must take the position that we can manipulate everything by socialization, since we can't know for sure wether it's determined by nature, nurture, or a combination of both. It's essentially shifting the burden of evicence.
In fact, it's pretty easy to determine what is innate, and what is learned. All you have to do is look at the variation across cultures. The behavior that varies is socialized, while the behavior that remains constant across cultures is innate. Boys prefer things, and girls prefer people, across all cultures. There are several other such differences we can observe.
Stepping back a bit, based on what we know about sexually reproducing species, we should certainly expect there to be many innate differences. Men and women, like all living things, are optimized for reproductive success. That is, behavior that increases fitness ( read: produces successful offspring ) is selected for.
Thing is, men and women reproduce VASTLY differently. Since womens reproductive potential is capped by biology, she can only grow so many offspring in her lifetime, while mens potential is capped only by access to mating opportunities, it follows that men and women will act differently. Men will display behavior designed to maximize their access to mating opportunities, while women will act in ways that maximize her ability to raise her offspring. Let's remember that a really smart ape is still an ape.
If men acted like women, being more choosy about who they copulate with, that would be detrimental to their reproductive success. Likewise if women acted like men, and tried to have sex with as many men as possible, that would be detrimental to her reproductive success because such behavior will produce less fit offspring. You can point to bonobos, and a couple of other exceptions in nature, but these species evolved in very specific and unusual environments. Bonobos have no natural predators, and have easy access to food, which is a rare luxury in nature. Their sexual behavior is just as much biologically hardwired as chimpanzees'.
These predictions fit perfectly with observations we can make. Men and women do in fact behave this way, in all cultures. There is no culture where these roles are reversed, so claiming that this behavior is "socially constructed" makes no sense.
A joke? Afraid not. This is representative of the quality of "research" feminists do. Kind of telling that it's impossible to determine if it's a joke or not don't you think?
He can ruin her life? Is that how it usually goes? Because as far as I can tell, any accusation of sexism, wether it's true or not, means academic death for the accused. Remember Tim Hunt? Donglegate? Feminism is a cancer.
How is that delusional? Are women not victims of the patriarchy? Isn't that what the patriarchy concept is all about? Isn't that why feminist want gender quotas everywhere?
You did, when you decided that treating women like people, per my post, was feminism which you then rejected entirely. Now you contradict yourself: No, I didnt. You're saying the solution is to treat women as people implying that they are not treated as people, that they are opressed and held back in STEM becuase of discrimination, and should be treated as such. There is no evidence for any such opression or discrimination in the US or Europe.
Pure delusion aside, you now reject the idea that treating women like people is a feminist principle. Which is it? Nope, wrong again. That women should be treated as people is a central idea of feminism, but what "treated as people" actually means, is treated like victims. That is clear from feminisms sentral doctrine, the doctrine of the Patriarchy, which holds that women er perpetually opressed.
Women should be treated as peers, not as victims who require special treatment and egg shell-walking. That is what feminism wants. Special treatment for women. Women should not be treated as victims merely because they are women.
If treating women like people, and not acting like a socially underdeveloped adolecent at work are anathema to you how can I possibly respond? If you think feminism is awful because you don't think that women should be treated like equals, and that adults should act like adults, what could I possibly offer in response? Who said I don't think women should be treated as equals? That's not what feminism is about though. Feminism is not about treating women as equals, it's about treating women as opressed victims that require special treatment. That's not the same thing. When you think that normal, pro-social, behavior is tyranny and must be resisted at all costs, what can I offer you? How can I convince you that pro-social behavior benefits everyone, yourself included? "Normal, pro-social behavior"? Clinging on to a victim narrative is not normal, or pro-social behavior. Claiming to be oppressed when you are not does not benefit anyone. The truth is, I can't. You may have believed that some time ago, but your inexplicable anti-feminist ideology has stripped what was left of your (presumably limited) understanding of normal social behavior. I can recommend some adult social services if you're having trouble functioning at work or in public places. My "anti-feminist" ideology? Sure, I am an anti-feminist, but my ideology is classic liberalism, which is fundamentally incompatible with feminisms' desire for censorship, "safe spaces", language policing, and strict regulation of culture. Thanks for the offer, but like I said, I don't need sexists telling me how to not be sexist, and feminism is most definitely a sexist ideology.
Adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are either villains, trophies, and the reason women won't have sex with them is entirely because they're disgusting. How much of that is from video games? It can be argued that the degrading treatment of women in the games played a role, but it could also just be that they don't get out of their moms basement to see the world isn't the awful place that they think it is.
As opposed to adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are perpetual victims of a mysterious and mythical patriarchy? The worst thing video gamers have become is skeptical of feminism? Yeah, that's a result of not just listening and believing, but of actually employing healthy skepticism. Modern second wave feminsm does not hold up to such scrutiny, so it can safely be dismissed as false. Thankfully, more and more people are doing this, and feminism true nature is becoming clear to more and more people. Hopefully this cancer will be gone from politics and academia in a decade.
I'll be damned. Here I thought here claims were "well researched" and scientific. Turns out it was wasn't, and science in fact shows that she is completely wrong. I wonder what other feminist claims are equally unsupported by evidence..
How does that work, sweetheart? If your position is that i misunderstood your argument, it's on you to clarify. You lost the debate when you refused to look at evidence. Do you realise that refusing to examine evidence contrary to your position makes you a fanatic, right?
The topic is anti science is it not? Is it really hijacking a topic to point out that denial of evolution is taught as fact, totally free of criticism and skepticism in universities? When feminism has succeeded at what creationism seeks to accomplish, denial of evolution, is it actually "decidedly off-topic"? No, of course not. You people need to wake the fuck up. All non-christians know creationism is bullshit, but not a lot of people realise feminism is doing the same thing and far more succesfully.
What does it tell you about a political ideology, that it defends itself against criticism in this manner? Not with counter arguments and evidence, but with accusations of bigot, virgin, and troll.
Straw man. When did I say that? You obviously do not consider evolutionary psychology to be a legitimate science, and now youre trying to use a straw man to argue all/none always/never. You're the one talking in binary terms, not me.
Did you see this yet? Rebecca Watson, a prominent mainstream feminist who regularly speaks at conferences? Hardly some radical outlier. http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
We agree then. I'm not trying to engage in whataboutism here, but rational people should be way more outraged that feminism has largely succeeded at what creationism is trying to accomplish.
Here is an example of the kind of anti science feminism is all about. This is about Rebecca Watson, a very popular youtuber and prominent feminist, not some marginal voice of a small minority. This is mainstream second wave feminism. http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology
Most of what passes for evopsych on the internet are sexist (amazingly both derogatory towards men and women) just-so stories. That's not science. Thanks for proving my point.
I'm not denying social influences. I'm not claiming it's just one or the other, feminists are. The doctrine of social constructionism is sentral to second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with what we know about evolution. Think about it; if you acknowledge that biology has an influence on priorities and choices, then doesn't that explain the wage gap? Doesn't that offer a more plausible explanation of the data, than a mystical patriarchy magically convincing women to make bad choices with patriarchal culture? Apply Occams Razor.
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology, for obvious argument breaking reasons. It's not uncommon for feminists and leftists to view EP as a pseudoscience.
Yes! They are being tought as fact in universities. You think womens studies faculties don't consider these doctrines to be as true the harder sciences? On the contrary, they believe them to be more true than the doctrines of the hard sciences. They believe that their method of soft learning leads to a better understanding of reality. I'm not making this up. Read Christina Hoff Sommers books.
The point being that unlike creationism, which gets regularly panned and ridiculed and criticized, feminism gets taught without criticism or even skepticism, and consequently its doctrines are far more entrenched in society and particularly in academia. At least there is a debate over creationism. There is no debate over the scientific validity of feminist theory.
How is it irrelevant? We are discussing antiscience being tought in our schools. At least non religuous people pretty much know creationism is nonsense, but not a lot of people realise that feminism is a larger source of antiscience than creationists are, and worse, people will accept it as fact far easier becuase criticizing feminism is taboo. My post immidiately got modded as a Troll. Why do you think that is?
I support criticizing creationists, and creationism has no place in school. But this is not the most severe case of antiscience in the education system. Feminism is, without a doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
HIV and Malaria have also been used to create cancer treatments.
Oh no! It seems that the science isn't quite settled here! It seems that socialization DOES have an effect!
No, it's settled. Boys are more interested in things, girls in people, and this is not due to socialization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Social Justice people like to think that it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to determine to what degree nature and nurture influence behavior, and advocate that we must take the position that we can manipulate everything by socialization, since we can't know for sure wether it's determined by nature, nurture, or a combination of both. It's essentially shifting the burden of evicence.
In fact, it's pretty easy to determine what is innate, and what is learned. All you have to do is look at the variation across cultures. The behavior that varies is socialized, while the behavior that remains constant across cultures is innate. Boys prefer things, and girls prefer people, across all cultures. There are several other such differences we can observe.
Stepping back a bit, based on what we know about sexually reproducing species, we should certainly expect there to be many innate differences. Men and women, like all living things, are optimized for reproductive success. That is, behavior that increases fitness ( read: produces successful offspring ) is selected for.
Thing is, men and women reproduce VASTLY differently. Since womens reproductive potential is capped by biology, she can only grow so many offspring in her lifetime, while mens potential is capped only by access to mating opportunities, it follows that men and women will act differently. Men will display behavior designed to maximize their access to mating opportunities, while women will act in ways that maximize her ability to raise her offspring. Let's remember that a really smart ape is still an ape.
If men acted like women, being more choosy about who they copulate with, that would be detrimental to their reproductive success. Likewise if women acted like men, and tried to have sex with as many men as possible, that would be detrimental to her reproductive success because such behavior will produce less fit offspring. You can point to bonobos, and a couple of other exceptions in nature, but these species evolved in very specific and unusual environments. Bonobos have no natural predators, and have easy access to food, which is a rare luxury in nature. Their sexual behavior is just as much biologically hardwired as chimpanzees'.
These predictions fit perfectly with observations we can make. Men and women do in fact behave this way, in all cultures. There is no culture where these roles are reversed, so claiming that this behavior is "socially constructed" makes no sense.
A joke? Afraid not. This is representative of the quality of "research" feminists do.
Kind of telling that it's impossible to determine if it's a joke or not don't you think?
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
He can ruin her life? Is that how it usually goes? Because as far as I can tell, any accusation of sexism, wether it's true or not, means academic death for the accused. Remember Tim Hunt? Donglegate? Feminism is a cancer.
How is that delusional? Are women not victims of the patriarchy? Isn't that what the patriarchy concept is all about? Isn't that why feminist want gender quotas everywhere?
You did, when you decided that treating women like people, per my post, was feminism which you then rejected entirely. Now you contradict yourself:
No, I didnt. You're saying the solution is to treat women as people implying that they are not treated as people, that they are opressed and held back in STEM becuase of discrimination, and should be treated as such. There is no evidence for any such opression or discrimination in the US or Europe.
Pure delusion aside, you now reject the idea that treating women like people is a feminist principle. Which is it?
Nope, wrong again. That women should be treated as people is a central idea of feminism, but what "treated as people" actually means, is treated like victims. That is clear from feminisms sentral doctrine, the doctrine of the Patriarchy, which holds that women er perpetually opressed.
Women should be treated as peers, not as victims who require special treatment and egg shell-walking. That is what feminism wants. Special treatment for women. Women should not be treated as victims merely because they are women.
If treating women like people, and not acting like a socially underdeveloped adolecent at work are anathema to you how can I possibly respond? If you think feminism is awful because you don't think that women should be treated like equals, and that adults should act like adults, what could I possibly offer in response?
Who said I don't think women should be treated as equals? That's not what feminism is about though. Feminism is not about treating women as equals, it's about treating women as opressed victims that require special treatment. That's not the same thing.
When you think that normal, pro-social, behavior is tyranny and must be resisted at all costs, what can I offer you? How can I convince you that pro-social behavior benefits everyone, yourself included?
"Normal, pro-social behavior"? Clinging on to a victim narrative is not normal, or pro-social behavior. Claiming to be oppressed when you are not does not benefit anyone.
The truth is, I can't. You may have believed that some time ago, but your inexplicable anti-feminist ideology has stripped what was left of your (presumably limited) understanding of normal social behavior. I can recommend some adult social services if you're having trouble functioning at work or in public places.
My "anti-feminist" ideology? Sure, I am an anti-feminist, but my ideology is classic liberalism, which is fundamentally incompatible with feminisms' desire for censorship, "safe spaces", language policing, and strict regulation of culture. Thanks for the offer, but like I said, I don't need sexists telling me how to not be sexist, and feminism is most definitely a sexist ideology.
So basically let feminists tell you how to behave. No, thank you. I don't need sexist ideologues telling me how to not be sexist.
Adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are either villains, trophies, and the reason women won't have sex with them is entirely because they're disgusting. How much of that is from video games? It can be argued that the degrading treatment of women in the games played a role, but it could also just be that they don't get out of their moms basement to see the world isn't the awful place that they think it is.
As opposed to adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are perpetual victims of a mysterious and mythical patriarchy?
The worst thing video gamers have become is skeptical of feminism? Yeah, that's a result of not just listening and believing, but of actually employing healthy skepticism. Modern second wave feminsm does not hold up to such scrutiny, so it can safely be dismissed as false. Thankfully, more and more people are doing this, and feminism true nature is becoming clear to more and more people. Hopefully this cancer will be gone from politics and academia in a decade.
I'll be damned. Here I thought here claims were "well researched" and scientific. Turns out it was wasn't, and science in fact shows that she is completely wrong.
I wonder what other feminist claims are equally unsupported by evidence..
How does that work, sweetheart? If your position is that i misunderstood your argument, it's on you to clarify. You lost the debate when you refused to look at evidence. Do you realise that refusing to examine evidence contrary to your position makes you a fanatic, right?
Fine. Do whatever you want, but refusing to answer my arguments and resorting to ad hominems means losing the debate.
You should bother, because refusal to examine evidence provided means losing the debate.
No comments on the link i posted twice? Is Watson a radical outlier? Is her denial of evolution correct?
The topic is anti science is it not? Is it really hijacking a topic to point out that denial of evolution is taught as fact, totally free of criticism and skepticism in universities? When feminism has succeeded at what creationism seeks to accomplish, denial of evolution, is it actually "decidedly off-topic"? No, of course not. You people need to wake the fuck up. All non-christians know creationism is bullshit, but not a lot of people realise feminism is doing the same thing and far more succesfully.
What are these legitimate reasons?
What does it tell you about a political ideology, that it defends itself against criticism in this manner? Not with counter arguments and evidence, but with accusations of bigot, virgin, and troll.
Straw man. When did I say that? You obviously do not consider evolutionary psychology to be a legitimate science, and now youre trying to use a straw man to argue all/none always/never. You're the one talking in binary terms, not me.
Did you see this yet? Rebecca Watson, a prominent mainstream feminist who regularly speaks at conferences? Hardly some radical outlier.
http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
We agree then. I'm not trying to engage in whataboutism here, but rational people should be way more outraged that feminism has largely succeeded at what creationism is trying to accomplish.
Here is an example of the kind of anti science feminism is all about. This is about Rebecca Watson, a very popular youtuber and prominent feminist, not some marginal voice of a small minority. This is mainstream second wave feminism.
http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology
Most of what passes for evopsych on the internet are sexist (amazingly both derogatory towards men and women) just-so stories. That's not science.
Thanks for proving my point.
I'm not denying social influences. I'm not claiming it's just one or the other, feminists are. The doctrine of social constructionism is sentral to second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with what we know about evolution. Think about it; if you acknowledge that biology has an influence on priorities and choices, then doesn't that explain the wage gap? Doesn't that offer a more plausible explanation of the data, than a mystical patriarchy magically convincing women to make bad choices with patriarchal culture? Apply Occams Razor.
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology, for obvious argument breaking reasons. It's not uncommon for feminists and leftists to view EP as a pseudoscience.
Yes! They are being tought as fact in universities. You think womens studies faculties don't consider these doctrines to be as true the harder sciences? On the contrary, they believe them to be more true than the doctrines of the hard sciences. They believe that their method of soft learning leads to a better understanding of reality. I'm not making this up. Read Christina Hoff Sommers books.
The point being that unlike creationism, which gets regularly panned and ridiculed and criticized, feminism gets taught without criticism or even skepticism, and consequently its doctrines are far more entrenched in society and particularly in academia. At least there is a debate over creationism. There is no debate over the scientific validity of feminist theory.
How is it irrelevant? We are discussing antiscience being tought in our schools. At least non religuous people pretty much know creationism is nonsense, but not a lot of people realise that feminism is a larger source of antiscience than creationists are, and worse, people will accept it as fact far easier becuase criticizing feminism is taboo. My post immidiately got modded as a Troll. Why do you think that is?
I support criticizing creationists, and creationism has no place in school. But this is not the most severe case of antiscience in the education system. Feminism is, without a doubt.