Warning: Trying to start some discussion, so wrote up a lot. If it's not your bag, or you don't care about the subject of gender or sex differences outside of calling out bullshit from the left's ever-evolving bonkers theories, probably not for you :)
One of the things the left loves to do is "Starting discussions". You can find it on who knows how many topics. But what it almost always has in common is they're not "starting a discussion" so much as stating "Here's the discussion, here's the only acceptable opinion and if you don't agree you're a <bigot/racist/homophobe/etc>."
As a result, it essentially stalls out pretty much any progress on those actual topics, whatever they may be. But obviously gender is one of the big ones, and seeing as the left can't shut down a conversation here, seems a good place to have an actual discussion on the topic of gender.
For me, to start with I see men and women as falling under "equal, but different". We're about 90% the same, 10% different. In that 10% different though you've got biological factors, psychological factors and sociological factors. Those differences matter sometimes, and in others are really not too important at all.
I also see gender roles as things developed over time that tend to smooth out relations between men and women. General guidelines that if you follow them relatively closely remove a lot of friction. At the same time, they're not perfect by a long shit because people are actually diverse - meaning, men on average are more aggressive than woman, but it's not by a huge margin: about 60/40. A more aggressive woman paired with a less aggressive man might both find typical gender roles to chafe and be frustrating for example.
That said, they're just guidelines that have worked out well for people. My hot take here is that people want things to go smoothly and to not have to think too hard about it and this applies to both men and women. We want relationships to just sort of settle into place rather than discussing things to a great degree, or being pedantic or annoying about it. A natural flow rather than a well designed one. Either way can work, but one tends to require more time, effort and energy and rarely supersedes the natural flow. At least, that's my feel from my own life and that of closer personal friends.
But I also think a deeper look is rather important when dealing with the opposite sex. It's not the most original take, but flipping the gender of someone and trying to perceive how you'd react to them if that were the case is often at the least an interesting mind game. For example, feminists would likely say something like "Tulsi Gabbard would've had more success and be taken more seriously if she had been a man - women are treated differently in politics, and not in a good way." Is that really true? If she were instead "Bob Gabbard", a balding but fairly athletic middle aged guy from Hawaii, but with the same opinions would you have had more respect for her? Or would she have come off as kind of decent, but generic candidate?
I think swapping someone's sex and trying to view them differently - if you can do so relatively fairly and with little bias - is probably one of the better ways of trying to understand people and it works well with both sexes. Guys who have wildly inflated opinions of a woman can end up cringing when the cute, bubbly edgy girl they are into are viewed as an edgy, emotional guy who likes some of the absolutely worst music. At the same time, the more busy woman, the one who works part time, goes to school full time, and is constantly helping out with her parents, her siblings, being that friend who's picking people up at the airport at 12:30AM, looks way more attractive.
Equally, the same is true of looking at other guys in not to deep a light. A male co-worker who's kind of negative, always looks worn down and never misses a moment to vent about shit. He's married, a couple kids, and just looks worn out and tired all the time - has to travel pretty far for work, because a home is cheaper further away and he wants his kids to have separate bedrooms. Pretty normal for a guy, not rare at all. Flip that around to a woman though, keep the story the same, and given the current cultural and gender situation, that woman is amazing, she never calls out sick, she's working hard for her kids, etc. Makes you appreciate the individual more.
At least, this is generically how I saw things when I was in my mid twenties, and even in my late twenties - I was pretty heavily influenced by mostly leftist talking points and media without thinking about things much. Guy, whatever, meh, shitty, at best maybe OK - woman, doing the same thing? Unbelievable, amazing, praise. So my views on men and women have shifted the further away I got from leftist talking points about these things - and shockingly found that the right-wing people I met were MUCH better at being judges of character and treating people better in general - those they looked down on, they had some good reasons for looking down on, and those they spoke well of, they had reason to speak well of them. But I feel all of this is sort of lost on people who just default to "Well, left is the good guys, and I agree with wanting women to have rights and stuff" - it avoids critical thinking and let's the left control the discussion that they start.
Of course, there's plenty of other sex/gender stuff to talk about, but this one was interesting to me and I was hoping to stir up some discussion on it :)
First of all, drop that "gender" crap, that's drinking their kool-aid right there. Gender is a term from linguistics, and has nothing to do with sex. Masculine/feminine =/= male and female. Completely separate things (even if the former is based on the latter), as one can be masculine without being male, or feminine without being female (or even fucking alive.)
We used to say "Battle of the Sexes", not "Battle of the Genders". Jesus Christ, there was even a fucking TV game show called that for a while.
And yeah, of course there are differences. The two sexes are "meant" (as far as anything is "meant" to be) to complement one another. It's kind why things seem to work better if you have a partner to help.
The problem with the Left is that 1) they conflate other cultures with the West - the way they describe the past is really fucking distorted, and often sounds more like they're describing modern Muslim or recent pre-modern Chinese bullshit when it comes to how women were treated/property rights and shit (this is a result of their "all cultures ar ethe same" lying nonsense; and 2) Describe even the modern day as something like from a distorted version of the 1950s.
And as far as aggression goes, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "On Aggression" and maybe a peek at Kipling's opinion of female aggression (ie, if we were kept out of men's counsels, it's because we're more likely to want to start a war over any perceived threat to us and our own than the menfolk. But that would be a function of not having to fight the war ourselves. Yeah, I think "equality" should include the draft. Maybe sometimes the female of the pair IS the one who should go. And keep in mind "aggression" doesn't just mean "naked hostility", it simply refers to being bold enough to get what you want. The bird who refuses to give way as you pass is being just as aggressive as a salesman with his foot in your door.)
Then you have them busybodying their way into how individual couples want to run their lives.
Oh, and Househusbands were always FROWNED UPON, and seen as MOOCHING OFF THEIR OL' LADIES. Oh, but find an old school man who wants to give you an earful about shiftless guys who wanna do that ...... and for that matter, the original Hound Dog by Big Mama Thornton had NOTHING to do with dogs and rabbits, it was about a lazy, shiftless bastard mooching off his woman. Because of COURSE he can't be making himself useful by cooking, cleaning, and running errands becauth hurr durr he's a man, durr.
The Left has simply made a business of TRASHING everything, without really wanting to "repair" anything, they're just all about change for the sake of change for to cause chaos. Also, they're too stupid to understand the difference between "legally equal" and "actually equal in terms of biology or physicality or intelligence or whatever". Yeah, there's a fucking difference. A retard might be equal to a normal human and better than a non-human under the law because it's just easier to treat an entire species that way, but it's certainly not the intellectually "better than" or superior to a higher-IQ non-human just because of its species membership, especially if its the sort that goes around pushing kids off balconies or in front of cars.
I don't think using the word gender means you're drinking their kool-aid. Maybe it's not the right word though, I'll grant you that. I think what they refer to as "gender" is essentially the brain processing things, sort of like a computer is running an operating system in the background - it's got an file system, it's got drivers, etc. There is something in the brain that has to load/run your identity, and part of that I think is gender identity. I also think there are parts of the brain that have to do with other forms of identity. Something in you handles "being a child" vs "being a teen" vs "being a parent". My view is more "Let's get very micro-level and see what pieces exist, what they're doing and how they're doing it"
I agree with 1) pretty heavily. Also reminds me of people who say there's nothing nothing more bullshit than "modern history" lol. 2) I agree with as well. I can't speak for the 50s, I wasn't there, and I can't speak to the 80s because I was basically a baby, but the 90s and 00s are crystal clear. Up until about 2012, things were damn near identical to the mid 90s from my point of view, at least culturally.
See, this is why I started this thread. No clue who that is, no idea of Kipling's view on female aggresion - and while I don't know who the first guy is or how is work, I think only a fool might not see the logic of what you described as Kipling's position - time to Google some interesting shit. There are also definitely times throughout history where the sexes were more split and had their own areas of influence, as odd as it might seem that men generally bowed out of what were considered "women's affaires" out of respect, like "Hey, we know our shit and and there's a reason we're not taking your advice on this." vs "Oh. Crap, you know about this stuff and I need sit back." Of course, that's a very positive rosy view of it and there was definitely some crazy as shit that far in the past, but I also think as society has improved, we tend to have better understanding of each others views, even in regards like the war stuff. But I don't think it's universal. Making me think quite a lot of some of the wives of the earliest US President's for example. And of course, I could be totally wrong too :) Thank you for sharing your view.
<I don't think using the word gender means you're drinking their kool-aid. Maybe it's not the right word though, I'll grant you that. I think what they refer to as "gender" is essentially the brain processing things, sort of like a computer is running an operating system in the background - it's got an file system, it's got drivers, etc. There is something in the brain that has to load/run your identity, and part of that I think is gender identity. I also think there are parts of the brain that have to do with other forms of identity. Something in you handles "being a child" vs "being a teen" vs "being a parent". My view is more "Let's get very micro-level and see what pieces exist, what they're doing and how they're doing it">
No, that's called INDIVIDUALISM. They want to turn every little personality quirk into a "disorder" and warp what were once seen as just part of each person being an individual with those expected little behavioural variations that give evolution its grist for the mill. A little slow? Nah, you're "on duh spectrum" so now entitled to have your ass kissed. :/
Thing is, the Left is informed by Eastern/Asian/Denisovan psychology, that seems to absolutely hate the concept of "The Individual" as a unit of society, and instead thinks in terms of groupism. Note that in Asian religious philosophy, the "individual" is fluid, and the end-game of existence is to eventually lose any semblance of individuality to become subsumed back into some barely-sentient cosmic blob or some shit, whereas in the West (and in animism) the individual is "fixed", even when amnesiac reincarnation is involved (ie, you were always "you" in some real sense, and will always be "you", whether in Heaven or another body as another species under another name.)
Konrad Lorenz was one of the first ethologists to actually have some respect for the animal mind, as opposed to the Skinnerites who followed that Descartes moron. A lot of what those old-school guys said about imprinting and pecking orders is actually projections of human behaviour ....
I think that's a bit too drastic a take. I can see your point, because obviously the left does what you say it does. It's how a large number of them behave, and there's very much something about the left that likes to "skip" the effort/work and reap the reward - i.e: Morbidly obese women who "won't be fat shamed, I'm beautiful and fuck you." They want to skip the effort, the weight loss, and just be accepted as beautiful and as sought after as the physically attractive women. It never occurs to those types "Huh, maybe I can admit that I'm not very attractive with this extra 150lbs, but I shouldn't mentally beat myself to death over it until I hate life, and I can work on it." They just want to go "Y'know what? I am beautiful and fuck all the fatphobes, let me surround myself with like minded people who will accept my beauty" - that's cray cray. But the key here is: don't blind yourself to whatever reality is/might be for people who have legitimate issues by mixing them in with the type we were just talking about.
Never heard this before, going to look into it before I speak to it. The only thing that it reminded me of was when I spent time in Japan, people were telling me that in the Japanese school system they had a preference of keeping the special needs children with the regular classes - it was more important for them to feel part of the group rather than have specific education that would be more of help to them. That was like 10+ years ago, and I don't know how true it is, but I can see that being important to them much more than it is the Westerners.
Gender roles?? Dude, you're already lost. Having adopted newspeak there is no reasoning with your discussion.
All species exist for the primary purpose of perpetuating that species. Fucking primary, I like to call it my "Fruit fly Theory of Reproduction."
You're a long-lived type with strong brain capacity and still, the primary goal driving your life is reproduction. You might be a fruit fly that lives long enough in 24 hours to reproduce; or you might be a human or a Galapagos turtle or an elephant that lives 80 years, but your hardwired job is to reproduce your species over and over again.
In order for the human species to reproduce, they must cross fertilize male-to-female. It's locked into the system. Which makes 'choosing genders' not only a biological lie, but a sign of severe degradation of the whole human organism. And then thusly the decline of the species.
Gender identity a myth made up by people who wish to have more orgasms and don't care where they come from. They want you to approve of their aberrant sex appetites.
I don't disagree totally, but I have a few disagreements here.
It's not like the term "gender roles" are a new thing, and they pre-date the long march through the institutions and such. I don't disagree that the primary purpose of a species if generally to reproduce.
But I think ignoring gender identity is a big mistake. I just think that the left doesn't have it correct. I think of gender identity as a biological based psychological function. 99.9% of the time everything is fine, you've got some part of your brain that deals with gender identity, and it lines up right. But maybe that element, whatever "thing" gender identity is (whether it's neurons firing in the brain, or a specific pattern, or hormones + puberty affecting brain development, idk what) perhaps it can be the opposite. Or barring that, perhaps it can be damaged, or something like that. There are so many odd things that human bodies can do that gender identity doesn't seem a stretch to me - from people who are basically allergic to water or check out "auto-brewery syndrome". Just in terms of curiosity, it makes think of people who have DID (Dissociative identity disorder). Certainly something in the brain has to do with identity, in some manner. Instead though, you just get the left's propaganda on the subject instead of actual science.
I think this is potentially a conflation. What you describe is true - those people absolutely exist. But I absolutely think at least one other group exists - there are plenty of trans people who a) are not overly sexual and b) look at the group you describe in a negative manner and consider them degenerate and perverts while they consider themselves to be in the realm of "I can't ignore this shit, it sucks, but transitioning seems to help so I guess I'll do that, because staying like this is fucking hell." I don't think you can lump those two groups together.
I also think of it like the Greek philosopher guy who hit on what an "Atom" was well ahead of his time by thinking "How small can an object be until you can no longer cut it in half?" Weird thought for a dude in 460 BC, but turns out he was sort of onto something. But hey, who knows, Elon and his Mindlink thing might be able to help detect some stuff one day and narrow down what / where the issue is. I also vaguely recall a European study of some kind that potentially associated transgenderism to a specific gene, or a gene that also showed links to other mental health issues. SOMETHING is going on, I just don't believe almost a word of what the left says or almost any of it's science, and it's science.
Anyone who has a "gender identity" should be drowned in a river as the humane thing to do.
I don't have a "gender identity" as a man, I'm simply a man.
Maybe. Maybe you're totally wrong though. Seems incredibly likely that we have a thing in our brains that deals with all aspects of identity. Not mystical, not magical, just you know, how brains work. You seem to strongly deny that anything could possibly exist in the brain that deals with the cognitive function of "identity". Seems pretty illogical though, but hey, you do you? Maybe after you're done drowning people because of a pairing of words they've used people will take you more seriously :)
I'm not wrong, you are dishonest. Leave.
You are a funny person, but I like that I can mock you here, especially for stupid comments like that ^_^
You are wrong. A female reproductive system is biologically expensive, a male reproductive system isn't. Those differences need to be "paid for" somewhere.
The average woman is worse than the average man at every measurable activity, except certain visual acuity tasks like color distinction. This doesn't mean that specific women can't outperform specific men at specific tasks. But it does mean that for most tasks if you have the choice between a man and a woman, you would pick the man.
There can be no "equality" and any attempts to do so lead to misery and injustice.
I think you are missing the meaning of "equal, but different." We all add up to one individual person, whether male or female. Of course there are difference, and by and large we are relatively equal - but I'm not going to deny male and female biological reproduction works differently. But almost every job a man can do, a woman can do as well, and vice versa. But often there are advantages to having men or women do certain jobs (i.e: military, fireman, etc.) I don't mean we are LITERALLY equal, we can see that women have vaginas and men have dicks.
Interestingly enough, I was thinking about color distinction, as they have that over men for sure - something to do with the cones in the eyes? I think smell as well is better. I understand what you're getting at - this is why I say equal, but different. If I meant we were literally equal, I'd have to be a crazy person, obviously there are differences. But I think it's very rare to go "No, woman, I'd always pick a man for this job, we're just not equal" when referring to a cashier at Dunkin Donuts or as a vet, or most jobs. That's what the left thinks of the right, and that's just plainly not true.
That is exactly what I am referring to. For any non-gender specific occupation occupation, if you know nothing else about the candidates, you would go with a man over a woman.
Men don't have the same productivity issues that women do. They don't get pregnant, they don't use kids or their period as an excuse, they don't whine instead of just working through the problem themselves.
Then there are the legal issues. The legal system is set up to allow women to extort money from a business through baseless torts, sexual harassment and discrimination, that have to be settled or else the public reputation of the company is destroyed. If a man grabbed another man's ass at work there might be a fist fight and a good talking to afterwards. If a man grabs a woman's ass that's potentially MILLIONS in damages.
Then there is the issue where men act dumb or walk on eggshells around women so even if the broads are fine workers themselves their mere presence changes the workplace dynamic to be less productive.
It makes sense to hold a default position of being skeptical of a woman on any job and assuming a man is adequately competent.
That doesn't mean that women can't be good at their jobs. I had a bunch of dental surgery recently and had a chick dentist. I gave her the chance to prove herself and she did an amazing job. She was meticulous, exacting, calm under pressure, patient, and competent, exactly what you would want from a medical professional, particularly one digging around in your mouth.
What the commies can't accept is that holding views that can be characterized as negative towards groups does not prevent the person holding those views of seeing group members as individuals and treating them as such.
No, you're just wrong, that's all.
Do tell, what about people who have different skin colors?
Moral equals, biologically distinct.
Either you believe that evolution works from the neck down and only skin-deep, or you accept the reality that hundreds of thousands of years of environmental and sexual selection have an impact - not enough to form separate species, but enough to make different traits more or less relevant for any given ethnic group.
A good hunter-gatherer has different needs than a good farmer. A good farmer under harsh conditions has different needs than one living in a more cooperative environment. Select for individuals who fulfill those needs long-term, and you produce distinctions.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.dRiI2limD0iGAZZBafA2cQHaF6?pid=Api&rs=1
No thank you
I have no idea why this question is on KIA2 or what relevance does it have but I'll bite.
It was not to "smooth out relations", gender roles are natural across species. It was the most efficient way to evolve to current day. Gender roles also have a biological component that if you ignore you can be miserable. I'm not advocating for enforcing gender roles or that they are universal to all people. But if you say to people that the gender roles are evil, a product of patriarchy or toxic then you will end up with depressed single man and barren single 40 year old women, bitter and hating man for not liking their dried out pussy.
I'm not sure about this statistic but if true that is a huge difference. Think of the DNA difference between man and apes.
This is not true. All evidence point to women having it easier. The "women are wonderful effect", hiring biases and my own anecdotal life experience all point to women being greatly favored.
My conclusion is the differences are larger then feminists claim and going against biology hurts both men and women. Feminists are evil beyond comprehension and are ruining the quality of life for everyone. Today feminists are the equivalent of religious extremists. They want men to be weak and emotional and supportive 100% of their crazy ass ideas while women should be strong independent and without children. Anyone who does not fit in to this are heretics.
We must stop feminists to set the rules for human interactions.
Mostly because you get banned in a lot of places for even posting that, and I know there are people here who like to talk about gender more than just shitting on the left, and have thoughts on the subject. I haven't heard those thoughts, so I figured I'd try :)
I don't disagree that gender roles have a biological component. But the specific set of standards we have generally have now didn't pop up out of no where, and they've changed over time. I'm fine with saying they're biologically based, but the way we discuss them, talk about them, and so on - they feel like they smooth out relations between the sexes. We're similar, not identical, and sometimes it's difficult to put yourself in the other genders' shoes - if it weren't, I think relationships would be a lot easier. In that regard, I think they're used to smoothing out relations, to have certain understandings and expectations to hew to. But yeah, I agree with the rest, that is how you end up with a whole mess of depressed and unhappy people on both sides, it's very, very bad.
I don't think it's statistically true, but it's how I view it: the 10% difference compromises biology, psychology and sociology. I don't know how much of each (i.e: 1% biologically different, 4% psychologically different, 5% sociologically different). The biological differences tend to be obvious to the eye, but also hormonal differences can certainly affect psychology (i.e: if women are more emotional than men on average, I can see that having strong psychological effects, especially during childhood). And socially, how we're treated affects us as well. I think those three components make up the important differences. The rest is basically the same. (i.e: desire for attention, love, sex, meaning, and so on.)
Right now, I'd agree overall, but certainly not in all aspects. I've definitely seen those hiring and promotion biases in my own workplace experiences, and a lot of people won't shut up about it privately. But I'm talking more specifically on an individual level, using my example: Would you favor Tulsi Gabbard more if she were a balding, articulate, fit man with the same ideas? Or do you find you favor her more as is?
I think the differences are also larger than feminists claim on average - and I do want to be specific when I say "feminists". I don't mind the person who knows a little bit of feminist propaganda and thinks they're stunning and brave for announcing "Woman should be equal!". Those people can become "actual" feminists, but the actual feminists like Roxanne Gay or Susanna Danuta Walters and so on - they are exactly what you describe, and they've got a larger growing army of indoctrinate fools. They are damaging to society - but we also live in a free society where people can make truly awful choices that aren't illegal. Consequence of freedom is people use it poorly.
Little disagreement, but not much. I have no desire to stop Christina Hoff Sommers - she's rational, does good work, and fights the other feminists. I guess the argument there would be she's not exactly a "feminist" as you describe it - rather, I see her as a healthy feminist, or maybe another term would be better. She's aware of the problems young boys are having these days, has talked about them extensively, speaks up on the issue. She has no problem doing the same for girls though if there's valid cause. In the end, she seems more like an individualist who is rational than a feminist.
Not really. A reason why Tulsi has bipartisan support is that she is a good looking women. Same reason for AOC, while I think she has the mouth of a horse, she seems to be appealing to a lot of guys.
It falls under women are wonderful. Women like this characters cause they support other women while men defend them cause they like women.
Gender is just a damn synonym for biological sex that came into use because the word “sex” was just a little risqué. This whole notion of gender as some sort of mental sex-based-but-not-really orientation is one of the most useless and navel-gazing thought experiments ever. I love asking people to define gender and then watch them struggle to give a coherent explanation. “It’s like... how you dress...and think about yourself...and stuff”
The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond might be of interest to you. He spends a great deal of the book talking about how differences between the sexes affects social structures, mate selection, and cultures around the world.