Like I said before, saying always was wrong. It isn't always the case, just like 99% of the time. Can we please talk about the 99% bucket now, or do you still want to keep harping of the 1%?
Do you also disagree with the statement "Americans speak English"? I mean you could probably name a lot of Americans who don't speak English.
It's called generalizing, and although you people think that is evil, it's actually a necessary tool. If something is true for an overwhelming majority of a selection, it is correct to say it is true for that selection. That statement is not the equivalent of saying "Absolutely every single american speaks English.
I'm done now. You're not debating the issue, but rather debating semantics and using straw men arguments to argue absolutes. I'm guessing you don't actually know what a straw man argument is either.
So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts. Wow. See I've tried not to insult you personally, even though you have constantly insulted me personally in your replies. You have the gall to accuse me of being ignorant of biology, and yet you are completely ignorant to basic mechanics of evolution. This stuff is evolution 101.
Exceptions exist, but despite what you SJW people like to think, and love to argue, variation does not invalidate a trend.
If the males purpose is not to spread genes, why do males exist? If that is not their purpose, why has this system where only half the population are capable of producing offspring evolved?
Oh so apart from the cases where it's not the case and apart from the cases where humans don't exihibit the behaviour you want them to and apart from the cases where the closest relatives to humans don't exhibit those cases there's no evidence.
You're confusing "evidence" and "data" with "anecdotes". They are not the same thing.
You haven't thought it through then. Think of the presuppositions in the statement "women make less money than men, hence society treats women unfairly".
That statement only makes sense if there are no inherent differences in the brain, and so gender must be a social construct that is unfair to women.
Yeah, I don't know who that is. If you don't believe me, then fine, but next time someone is showing you statistics of how men make more than women, think about what I said.
You claimed that sexual reproduction means that men and women's brains must be different. I pointed out that there are both dimorphic and hematopoietic sexually reproducing organisms with no brains at all. Do you now recant your position that sexual reproduction must involve mental differences? Fine. There are some species of flora where this is not the case. You are right, that only applies to sexually reproducing fauna. Congratulations.
Second you claimed that male reproductive success is uncapped. I pointed our many examples where that is not in fact the case. Do you now retract that point? No, you haven't. I don't understand how you have so little insight in the basics of sexual reproduction. The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring. Do you not understand that this fundamental mechanism, this division of labour, is the reason why sexual reproduction is so effective?
Let's say you as a male have a beneficial mutation. If you are a a male you could spread that to an almost infinite number of offspring. A female couldn't. That is the very purpose of The Male. That doesn't work if the male is as choosy as a female, which is why males have evolved to be less choosy.
Sure, there are some species that have adapted to other strategies, but these are edge cases in some unusual environments, and are not the norm. In the vast majority of sexually reproducing mammals, males compete for females. There is no reason, and no evidence, that humans are any different, in spite of your anecdotes from Essex.
You're kidding me, right? Your first reply is a text book example of an ad hominem.
If you did not know that gender as a social construct in a core feminist belief, look around. Read what is being written and done under the feminist banner. It is a core belief, not a radical one.
How on earth does that explain the way that Bonobos (our closest relative) carry on? The prevaling theory for the differences in behavoir between chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest relatives, is that bonobos evolved in an environment where it was not necessary to compete for food.
It's funny that you bring it up, as if the fact that we can observe different sexual behavior in other species means that human sexuality isn't as predetermined as a bonobos. Different species behave different sexually, but how they behave sexually is never a "social construct".
If you are indeed as well versed in biology as you claim, you will also recognize the bonobo as an exception, an edge case.
Do you disagree with the classification of humans as a species where males compete for females?
Such as? Gender as a social construct, and social constructionism in general are their main lies. No evidence whatsoever for either.
I hope the irony of you ( erroneously ) accusing me of an ad hominem argument, and then in your very next sentence you - yet again - use it, is not lost on you.
The claim is that there are fundamental inherent differences between men and womens' brains. To give some examples of what these are: investment in offspring, risk taking, and differing interests. The citation for that claim is Steve Pinkers Book "The Blank Slate", which in turn provides references to studies.
Male and female plants still have to act differently. They just do not require a brain to do so. You do not seem to fully understand the implications of humans being a sexually reproductive mammal.
Look, females have a cap on their reproductive success, males do not. Given how important reproductive success is, we expect sexes to behave differently because of this. Males want more sex partners and are less choosy, because sex i cheaper for males. This imbalance is why sexual reproduction works Men compete for females, and females preference for good genes drives the species forward.
Er how about that cause where are a bunch of people are trying to stop other people from mutilating young girls so they will be unable to get pleasure from sex when they are older?
I think you will find that feminism is surprisingly friendly to Islam, and how women are treated in these countries is not a major feminist issue, compared to say, violence and sexism in media. Feminism is concerned mainly with western culture.
Feminism: the radical notion that women are people. That is an absurd definition. That's like saying "Christianity: the notion that there is one god". Yeah there's a lot more to it than that "m8", and I reserve the right to criticize ideology based on the actions of it's followers regardless of what they offer as their own definition.
Feminism has been spreading lies about sex and gender for decades. It has also been able to label all critics as misogynists, as clearly illustrated by your reaction.
I have precisely the same problem with feminism as I have with creationism. Ideology posing as science and fact. And thanks for the ad hominem. I always know I'm doing something right when people use it.
First you criticize me for using Steve Pinker as a reference. It was unreasonable of me to ask you to read a book which extensively and thoroughly explains the evidence.
So i tl;dr it for you, and now all of a sudden you're all "citation needed!"? Fine. Shall I give you the amazon link to his book, or is that also too much to ask?
Evolutionary biology is the science of the mechanism of life. Understanding sexual reproduction, that is, what it is, why it exists, and why it is efficient, is something only biology can do.
We know for a fact that for sexual reproduction to work, males and females have to act differently.
Go ahead. Name a major feminist cause that is not rooted in the notion that men and women are not different, that we are all blank slates.
"The differences between male and female brains seems to be a subject of intense debate, whichpretty much means that the differences are subtle." This isn't logically valid reasoning. There is debate, therefore differences are subtle? There is a debate about creationism too. I guess that proves the jurys still out on creationisms scientific validity then.
Hard scientific data, as in meta studies in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics, tells us there are significant and fundamental differences between the sexes. There is very little data supporting the opposing argument.
Can't say I'm surprised by that. Psychology of gender has a less credible ring to it than evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics though, since we know how politicized the social sciences are.
I did reference Steve Pinker, and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism. Without that assumption it loses all merit.
There is a huge gap between what we know about sex and gender from science, and what people generally believe about sex and gender. Steve Pinker has written multiple books on the subject.
The cause of this discrepancy? Shit, I'll just say it; It's post modern feminism.
Is there a way to reclaim Slashdot from this constant barrage of psychological assault on IT professionals by outsiders?
Yes, it is called "stop being misogynistic whiny manbabies if you're called on some of your misbehaviour".
The other way is of course time. There is a movement for more diversity, and it will win eventually when said manbabies die out. Given their obnoxious whinging, they are not recruiting faster than they are dying out, and every flare-up into uglyness like GamerGhazi throws off more moderates.
That was nothing more than a text book example of a cowardly ad hominem argument. No facts, no evidence, not even a counterargument.
I honestly don't understand it. Is it not clear to everyone who has seen her videos that she is attempting to force all culture to promote the feminist paradigm of the blank slate?
"Sexism in games makes people sexist" is a claim that only makes sense under the blank slate paradigm, that is our thoughts, opinions and actions are the product of environment alone. And let's not forget how gender roles are "social constructs". These are views that are mutually exclusive with evidence from evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics. They are incorrect. People who do agree need to read Steve Pinkers thorough disproval of in his book "The Blank Slate".
You simply cannot agree with Sarkeesians views without ignoring these facts.
If a Christian tries to force blatantly scientifically incorrect ideology on culture and pass it off as fact, as with creationism, people here are generally pragmatic enough to oppose it as pseudoscience that has no place in the collective consciousness.
When people try to do the same thing, to push blatantly incorrect pseudoscience as fact, except this time under the feminism/social justice banner, you want to praise them.
Apparently the perceived importance of the message excuses it from it's philosophical burden of evidence.
It's baffling, and sad to see ideology take a front seat to evidence on Slashdot. Sad indeed.
For the record, #gamergate was never even remotely related to feminism or censorship. Some feminists made it about feminism when they allegedly received threats from alleged members of the #gamergate movement.
Their line of logic is as follows: Since men and women are equal, any measurement that shows any imbalance can only be attributed to society treating men and women differently. If we had a fair society, we would be seeing 50/50 splits across the board, so until we see this, we need to continue adjusting society.
It's obvious where the mistake is, it's good old Tabula Rasa again. If we want to end this kind of foolishness we need to push the debate towards their erroneous assumptions, instead of debating them on their own merits. Weather or not men are more violent than women, or women are more often victims of domestic abuse is irrelevant when these differences cannot be attributed to an unfair society. If it's not society's fault, then the assumption that this being a product of "patriarchy" is no longer valid, and 98% percent of their "evidence" is no longer admissible.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said before, saying always was wrong. It isn't always the case, just like 99% of the time. Can we please talk about the 99% bucket now, or do you still want to keep harping of the 1%?
Do you also disagree with the statement "Americans speak English"? I mean you could probably name a lot of Americans who don't speak English.
It's called generalizing, and although you people think that is evil, it's actually a necessary tool. If something is true for an overwhelming majority of a selection, it is correct to say it is true for that selection. That statement is not the equivalent of saying "Absolutely every single american speaks English.
I'm done now. You're not debating the issue, but rather debating semantics and using straw men arguments to argue absolutes. I'm guessing you don't actually know what a straw man argument is either.
Answer my questions in the post above, coward.
From the context it is very clear that by "always" i mean all societies showed these trends.
You would only need to explicitly state that for an idiot of your caliber.
So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts.
Wow. See I've tried not to insult you personally, even though you have constantly insulted me personally in your replies. You have the gall to accuse me of being ignorant of biology, and yet you are completely ignorant to basic mechanics of evolution. This stuff is evolution 101.
Exceptions exist, but despite what you SJW people like to think, and love to argue, variation does not invalidate a trend.
If the males purpose is not to spread genes, why do males exist? If that is not their purpose, why has this system where only half the population are capable of producing offspring evolved?
Oh so apart from the cases where it's not the case and apart from the cases where humans don't exihibit the behaviour you want them to and apart from the cases where the closest relatives to humans don't exhibit those cases there's no evidence.
You're confusing "evidence" and "data" with "anecdotes". They are not the same thing.
Fucking moron.
You haven't thought it through then.
Think of the presuppositions in the statement "women make less money than men, hence society treats women unfairly".
That statement only makes sense if there are no inherent differences in the brain, and so gender must be a social construct that is unfair to women.
Yes there is reason to expect there to be differences and we can in fact observe these differences as patterns that occur across all human societies.
Males always take more risks.
Women always invest more in offspring.
Men are more interested in things, women in people.
The Blank Slate by Steve Pinker
Yeah, I don't know who that is.
If you don't believe me, then fine, but next time someone is showing you statistics of how men make more than women, think about what I said.
You claimed that sexual reproduction means that men and women's brains must be different. I pointed out that there are both dimorphic and hematopoietic sexually reproducing organisms with no brains at all. Do you now recant your position that sexual reproduction must involve mental differences?
Fine. There are some species of flora where this is not the case. You are right, that only applies to sexually reproducing fauna. Congratulations.
Second you claimed that male reproductive success is uncapped. I pointed our many examples where that is not in fact the case. Do you now retract that point?
No, you haven't. I don't understand how you have so little insight in the basics of sexual reproduction. The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring. Do you not understand that this fundamental mechanism, this division of labour, is the reason why sexual reproduction is so effective?
Let's say you as a male have a beneficial mutation. If you are a a male you could spread that to an almost infinite number of offspring. A female couldn't. That is the very purpose of The Male. That doesn't work if the male is as choosy as a female, which is why males have evolved to be less choosy.
Sure, there are some species that have adapted to other strategies, but these are edge cases in some unusual environments, and are not the norm. In the vast majority of sexually reproducing mammals, males compete for females. There is no reason, and no evidence, that humans are any different, in spite of your anecdotes from Essex.
You're kidding me, right? Your first reply is a text book example of an ad hominem.
If you did not know that gender as a social construct in a core feminist belief, look around. Read what is being written and done under the feminist banner. It is a core belief, not a radical one.
How on earth does that explain the way that Bonobos (our closest relative) carry on?
The prevaling theory for the differences in behavoir between chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest relatives, is that bonobos evolved in an environment where it was not necessary to compete for food.
It's funny that you bring it up, as if the fact that we can observe different sexual behavior in other species means that human sexuality isn't as predetermined as a bonobos. Different species behave different sexually, but how they behave sexually is never a "social construct".
If you are indeed as well versed in biology as you claim, you will also recognize the bonobo as an exception, an edge case.
Do you disagree with the classification of humans as a species where males compete for females?
Such as?
Gender as a social construct, and social constructionism in general are their main lies. No evidence whatsoever for either.
I hope the irony of you ( erroneously ) accusing me of an ad hominem argument, and then in your very next sentence you - yet again - use it, is not lost on you.
The claim is that there are fundamental inherent differences between men and womens' brains. To give some examples of what these are: investment in offspring, risk taking, and differing interests. The citation for that claim is Steve Pinkers Book "The Blank Slate", which in turn provides references to studies.
Male and female plants still have to act differently. They just do not require a brain to do so. You do not seem to fully understand the implications of humans being a sexually reproductive mammal.
Look, females have a cap on their reproductive success, males do not. Given how important reproductive success is, we expect sexes to behave differently because of this. Males want more sex partners and are less choosy, because sex i cheaper for males. This imbalance is why sexual reproduction works Men compete for females, and females preference for good genes drives the species forward.
Er how about that cause where are a bunch of people are trying to stop other people from mutilating young girls so they will be unable to get pleasure from sex when they are older?
I think you will find that feminism is surprisingly friendly to Islam, and how women are treated in these countries is not a major feminist issue, compared to say, violence and sexism in media. Feminism is concerned mainly with western culture.
Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.
That is an absurd definition. That's like saying "Christianity: the notion that there is one god". Yeah there's a lot more to it than that "m8", and I reserve the right to criticize ideology based on the actions of it's followers regardless of what they offer as their own definition.
Feminism has been spreading lies about sex and gender for decades. It has also been able to label all critics as misogynists, as clearly illustrated by your reaction.
I have precisely the same problem with feminism as I have with creationism. Ideology posing as science and fact. And thanks for the ad hominem. I always know I'm doing something right when people use it.
First you criticize me for using Steve Pinker as a reference. It was unreasonable of me to ask you to read a book which extensively and thoroughly explains the evidence.
So i tl;dr it for you, and now all of a sudden you're all "citation needed!"?
Fine. Shall I give you the amazon link to his book, or is that also too much to ask?
Evolutionary biology is the science of the mechanism of life. Understanding sexual reproduction, that is, what it is, why it exists, and why it is efficient, is something only biology can do.
We know for a fact that for sexual reproduction to work, males and females have to act differently.
Go ahead. Name a major feminist cause that is not rooted in the notion that men and women are not different, that we are all blank slates.
As for my definition of feminism, pretty much every single major feminist cause is rooted in the Tabula Rasa.
"The differences between male and female brains seems to be a subject of intense debate, whichpretty much means that the differences are subtle."
This isn't logically valid reasoning. There is debate, therefore differences are subtle? There is a debate about creationism too. I guess that proves the jurys still out on creationisms scientific validity then.
Hard scientific data, as in meta studies in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics, tells us there are significant and fundamental differences between the sexes. There is very little data supporting the opposing argument.
Can't say I'm surprised by that. Psychology of gender has a less credible ring to it than evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics though, since we know how politicized the social sciences are.
I did reference Steve Pinker, and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism. Without that assumption it loses all merit.
Doesn't make me wrong.
There is a huge gap between what we know about sex and gender from science, and what people generally believe about sex and gender.
Steve Pinker has written multiple books on the subject.
The cause of this discrepancy? Shit, I'll just say it; It's post modern feminism.
Yes, it is called "stop being misogynistic whiny manbabies if you're called on some of your misbehaviour".
The other way is of course time. There is a movement for more diversity, and it will win eventually when said manbabies die out. Given their obnoxious whinging, they are not recruiting faster than they are dying out, and every flare-up into uglyness like GamerGhazi throws off more moderates.
That was nothing more than a text book example of a cowardly ad hominem argument.
No facts, no evidence, not even a counterargument.
I honestly don't understand it. Is it not clear to everyone who has seen her videos that she is attempting to force all culture to promote the feminist paradigm of the blank slate?
"Sexism in games makes people sexist" is a claim that only makes sense under the blank slate paradigm, that is our thoughts, opinions and actions are the product of environment alone. And let's not forget how gender roles are "social constructs". These are views that are mutually exclusive with evidence from evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics. They are incorrect. People who do agree need to read Steve Pinkers thorough disproval of in his book "The Blank Slate".
You simply cannot agree with Sarkeesians views without ignoring these facts.
If a Christian tries to force blatantly scientifically incorrect ideology on culture and pass it off as fact, as with creationism, people here are generally pragmatic enough to oppose it as pseudoscience that has no place in the collective consciousness.
When people try to do the same thing, to push blatantly incorrect pseudoscience as fact, except this time under the feminism/social justice banner, you want to praise them.
Apparently the perceived importance of the message excuses it from it's philosophical burden of evidence.
It's baffling, and sad to see ideology take a front seat to evidence on Slashdot. Sad indeed.
For the record, #gamergate was never even remotely related to feminism or censorship. Some feminists made it about feminism when they allegedly received threats from alleged members of the #gamergate movement.
Their line of logic is as follows:
Since men and women are equal, any measurement that shows any imbalance can only be attributed to society treating men and women differently. If we had a fair society, we would be seeing 50/50 splits across the board, so until we see this, we need to continue adjusting society.
It's obvious where the mistake is, it's good old Tabula Rasa again. If we want to end this kind of foolishness we need to push the debate towards their erroneous assumptions, instead of debating them on their own merits. Weather or not men are more violent than women, or women are more often victims of domestic abuse is irrelevant when these differences cannot be attributed to an unfair society. If it's not society's fault, then the assumption that this being a product of "patriarchy" is no longer valid, and 98% percent of their "evidence" is no longer admissible.