AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-01-20, 22:04   Link #61
arias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFool
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.

Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)

I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.

Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/li..._112700_112700)

I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.

Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)

I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.

Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.

I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
Mmm. That was a nice point, really.

What it illustrates is how modern feminism is a force that moulds and encourages females to take on traits which are have been of traditional male territory. That's why "strong" and aggressive women are championed. The most often championed female icons are those who succeed in the workplace -- but isn't it funny that feminism champions females who really beat out males at their own "male" game?

You're right in the way that feminism didn't promote what we normally think as female characteristics to the general public, instead, it's a drive pushing to adopt "male traits" instead. Funny that.
arias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 12:47   Link #62
Tsu
Burorororou
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Zubababaan
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Tsu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
That's actually what I was trying to say. Men are physically stronger on average, but that's not very important in today's society. That don't mean we can't aknowledge it.
Why? If we simply discriminate individuals rather than groups of people, there's no need to acknowledge averages, because there are none.
__________________
Tsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 13:11   Link #63
Thewanderer
Hiyori Fanboy
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Thewanderer Send a message via Yahoo to Thewanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
Why? If we simply discriminate individuals rather than groups of people, there's no need to acknowledge averages, because there are none.
What do you mean? Of course there's averages... where's your proof of that statement?

Just because focus is on individuals don't negate the facts about the groups.
__________________
Thewanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 14:24   Link #64
Tsu
Burorororou
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Zubababaan
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Tsu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
What do you mean? Of course there's averages... where's your proof of that statement?
An average requires a group of more than 1 'items' (well, it doesn't require it, but it becomes pointless without it); after all, 100 / 1 still equals 100.
When you discriminate individuals and not groups of people, there's no average to be made.

Quote:
Just because focus is on individuals don't negate the facts about the groups.
What facts? The fact that people are so insistent on dividing people into groups is what caused these problems to begin with.
Certainly there are differences between men and women that er nearly absolute (e.g. women can get pregnant, while men can't) and you have to consider those, but on aspects that are different for each individual (such as physical strength) what's the point in assuming from averages?
__________________
Tsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 18:15   Link #65
Thewanderer
Hiyori Fanboy
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Thewanderer Send a message via Yahoo to Thewanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
What facts? The fact that people are so insistent on dividing people into groups is what caused these problems to begin with.
Certainly there are differences between men and women that er nearly absolute (e.g. women can get pregnant, while men can't) and you have to consider those, but on aspects that are different for each individual(such as physical strength) what's the point in assuming from averages?
The average woman can get pregnant. Some can't. You assumed that, and not other averages? And I didn't say that we should assume on average, just in generalization. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
__________________
Thewanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 19:05   Link #66
Tsu
Burorororou
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Zubababaan
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Tsu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
The average woman can get pregnant. Some can't. You assumed that, and not other averages?
I wouldn't call that an average, since that would make the average woman about 93% capable of getting pregant... which makes very little sense, but that's just sementics, I suppose.
Anyway, I also said nearly absolute. Plus I didn't think the example through well enough and just went with the first thing that came to mind. So, allow me to rephrase it: all women that are healthy in body and mind, aren't missing 'anything' and are not too old, but not too young either, can technically get pregnant, men cannot (though they might in a few years).

Quote:
And I didn't say that we should assume on average, just in generalization. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
Just in what situation would we need to generalize up to that point?
__________________
Tsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 19:23   Link #67
Thewanderer
Hiyori Fanboy
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Thewanderer Send a message via Yahoo to Thewanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
I wouldn't call that an average, since that would make the average woman about 93% capable of getting pregant... which makes very little sense, but that's just sementics, I suppose.
I don't know the amount of men that're stronger than the average woman of the same age, but I'd guess that the ratio is about the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
Anyway, I also said nearly absolute. Plus I didn't think the example through well enough and just went with the first thing that came to mind. So, allow me to rephrase it: all women that are healthy in body and mind, aren't missing 'anything' and are not too old, but not too young either, can technically get pregnant, men cannot (though they might in a few years).
They might in a few years? WTF? I wouldn't really call them male if they did...

My point is, there's differences in gender other than reproductive functions, and loosing sight of these differences is destroying our society.
__________________

Last edited by Thewanderer; 2006-01-21 at 19:40.
Thewanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 19:59   Link #68
Tsu
Burorororou
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Zubababaan
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Tsu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
They might in a few years? WTF? I wouldn't really call them male if they did...
It is generally considered possible. But due to the dangers and ethical problems involved, noone has tried it yet. With medicine moving at the rate it is, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibilty in ten years or so, though.

Quote:
My point is, there's differences in gender other than reproductive functions, and loosing sight of these differences is destroying our society.
Certainly, there are other differences. Women are supposedly better at multitasking than men, for instance. Even so, no woman is born with the perfect female body and mind and no man is born with the perfect male body and mind, so there are many women with traits that are generally considered masculine and many men with traits that are generally considered feminine. That being the case, wouldn't it be better not to assume that every member of group 〇 has the same traits?
I don't see how losing sights of these differences would be destructive to society, though. A society isn't made of "men" and "women", after all, it's made of people.
__________________
Tsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 20:11   Link #69
Veritas
The Last Visible Dog
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
Knowing how to take care of a baby IS an innate female trait. If it wasn't, humans wouldn't even exist, as our species would've died off long before neanderthals ever evolved. Even today, you can see that the females of most species of animals know instinctively how to properly take care of their offspring.

There's lots more to taking care of a baby than "changing a diaper" or "testing the temperature of milk with her elbow". Females actually have instincts related to child raising. Males have next to none.
Uh, no, no they don't. Name one. It's a matter of deduction. If you placed a crying baby in front of a man, he would probably know that 1) the baby may have a messy diaper, 2) the baby is hungry, or 3) the baby needs to get cuddled. If women automatically knew what their baby needed, there wouldn't be a billion "Parenting for Dummies" books.

In nature, I doubt it's so much a matter of male animals not knowing what their offspring need, as not caring, thus they don't even stick around after the mating. In fact, that really the only way I see a woman being more suited to care for a baby, because they may have stronger maternal instincts*.

Quote:
Of course. Those situations are entirely understandable. You're talking like I'm totally aginst the idea of females working, which if you read my very first post, you'd understand that. And FYI, my fiancé is an office lady. She definitely earns her share of the money.
Even if it's not one of those situations. If you need double incomes to continue your lifestyle, then it must be done. (Of course, if you're at that stage, i would say don't have a kid to begin with, as it won't improve the situation, but that is neither here nor there.)

*Not maternal as it relates to being a mother, but maternal as in having charteristics of a mother. I've seen guys coddle nice cars the same way I see women coo at their babies.
__________________
I'm not going to neg rep you in return. Leave your name.
Veritas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 20:20   Link #70
uzumaki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY. The comment from Thewanderer about how women who don't enjoy motherhood are "selfish" sickened me to nausea. Most animals don't even have parental care, and the offspring survive on their own just as well. In birds, the male does at least half of the child rearing. And the all too common "men are hunters women are gatherers" is derived from PREHISTORIC times, since nowadays it is virtually impossible to conduct evolutionary studies on humans let alone their sexes. Before patriarchial societies there were matriachal societies, and there is a lot of evidence that it is they who invented the first form of writing.
I for one, do not like babies. I can't bear staying at home and cleaning their diapers and all that other stuff. Thewanderer...please don't make ignorant assumptions. Things like changing diapers, etc, ARE NOT INNATE. In fact, about the only thing science has confirmed that says that women make better parents is that women are more sensitive to children and less prone to violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
Oh, no. Most feminists nowadays are greedy(some I'd even call nazi-ish) b!tches.
Finally you stopped beating about the bush and said what you finally wanted to. And what makes them greedy? Please explain yourself, Mr. "nazi-ish b!tches"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFool
I'd thought feminism would encourage more women to proudly wear skirts, and even some men to do the same.

Instead both men and women wear constricting uniform pants, symbols of being Cogs in the Machine. (Pants also constrict airflow and allow greater opportunities for foreign objects to get stuck up the wearer's @ss. Unpleasantless therefore ensues.)

I'd thought feminism would make everyone modest and demure and blushing.

Instead the number of boorish sex-starved addicts effectively doubled.
(http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/li..._112700_112700)

I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.

Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)

I'd thought feminism would teach people to be selfless and considerate of others.

Instead the 'Me' culture has risen full force.

I have no idea what this thing is that happened and why it is called feminism.
UMMMMM. DUDE. What the h*ll? Feminism is not about any of those things. It sickens me when people are so confident while they jabber away ABSOLUTE idioticy. You might want to do a search on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) about what feminism is, and it certainly isn't about wearing skirts, or blushing more, about selflessness (I think you're confusing RELIGION with FEMINISM).
As for the "I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)" :
If both the father and the mother work, then obviously the child needs to be taken care of. And it wasn' t the industrial revolution that took the father out; that has been since...way way long before the industrial revolution.

People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diodati
Y'know I'm only going to post once more in here, but I feel I should at least give my POV rather than bite my tongue...erm fingers.

It's ironic as many of these ‘'women’’ being described in this thread are *not* Feminists - I find it unlikely, truly, that they take an interest in the critical theory involved. I'm saddened to see many women and silly girls manipulate terminology and the 'real' oppression of millions of women into their own trivial girl power slogans. Feminists, of the ones I’ve met in the last ten yeas, are not actually interested in that. They do NOT want double standards. They do NOT promote equality and then are happy with the gendered predetermined ‘roles’ that both men and women are given, in most societies.

One of the core roots of studies in Feminism specifically now, is that of defining ‘female’, ‘feminine’ and ‘feminism’. All of them are DIFFERENT - Feminism itself has about 50 strands to it - some of which greatly disgaree with each other!
I’d rather not bring myself into teaching a philosophy about what it entails but some of you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off in what you think Feminism is. Actually it's becoming a bit worrying.

In regards to the empowering of certain women – Feminism is not done through bra burning and all that jazz - these days it tends to be on an examination of aesthetic and artistic levels as well as psyche and representation - it's moved into very European roots. I too immensely dislike the extreme stuff but that isn't ''Feminism'' to me - that's using a very intellectual and varied theory just to bash men. So it really p*sses me off to see 'Feminism' get generalised into misused definitions - and that's not aimed at anyone in particular as many women are equally guilty of doing it - but let me clarify, it's only a select few who promote any of sh*t that people seem to think Feminism is whenever this topic is brought up.

In fact this topic seems less about ‘Feminism’ and more about your own personal opinion on gender politics and socially determinable roles and behaviour. The irony is, such, if you take an interest in the strands Feminism now exists in – these women *do* promote women to go into hard science, politics, and male orientated business.

Mary Wollstonecraft, probably the real pioneer of women’s rights, back in the 1700s declared that it was the responsibility of 'normal' WOMEN, equally, to change the roles and attitudes - regardless of whether that will bring their life into stigma. And that still holds true today.

However it's easier said than done: I went into mathematics and computer science, my father was an electrical engineer, but I got so disgruntled with being viewed as a minority on my course – a token - that I eventually found the whole thing miserable. And the work quite soul-less to be perfectly honest. It's interesting to note that the majority of people in the higher level mathematic and physics classes at my schools were female - yet when given the choice at college and university level they all picked Psychology and what not – I guess because that’s what they think they're supposed to do:

Even if women do choose to go into these ‘male orientated’ paths, I know myself, that certain people will of course view their getting jobs as simply down to them being women. Do you think women like that?? Yes I’m sure it’s true on one level that certain women manipulate it for an easier ride - but not many do. It kinda makes you feel as though you're not able to achieve anything, you never feel acknowledgement or pride in what you do.

It’s verging on being insulting that some of you think many women would find that a worthwhile scenario – the likelihood Feminist women would want that is at about zero %. Like I said before, some of you are thinking some very weird particulars to hold your views – without specifying who these apparent Feminists are that say such views. Ad that might be down to no Feminists ever writing such a thing. Most Feminists I know actually *do* want the standards that so men and women seem to think they avoid:

On one hand it's quite amusing to think that people believe in such 'wrong' ways, that Feminism - but on the other, it kinda upsets me that there is such a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of some of the most intelligent and, imo, important women in western civilisation. (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir, Hélène Cixous, Judith Butler, Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Julia Kristeva, The Valiant Five, Séverine, Audre Lorde) But anyway, if taking recent people, then women such as Rebecca Walker, Kate Millett, Barbara Smith, Jean Kilbournce, Nadine Strossen etc have the right examples for women to follow in terms of 'applied' Feminism.
uzumaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 21:01   Link #71
Thewanderer
Hiyori Fanboy
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Thewanderer Send a message via Yahoo to Thewanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
Uh, no, no they don't. Name one. It's a matter of deduction. If you placed a crying baby in front of a man, he would probably know that 1) the baby may have a messy diaper, 2) the baby is hungry, or 3) the baby needs to get cuddled. If women automatically knew what their baby needed, there wouldn't be a billion "Parenting for Dummies" books.
You name one man like that. I love kids, but I'd be scared to death if I was perminantly stuck with raising one by myself. Of course that's just me, but I can't see that it'd be much different than the majority of other men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
In nature, I doubt it's so much a matter of male animals not knowing what their offspring need, as not caring, thus they don't even stick around after the mating. In fact, that really the only way I see a woman being more suited to care for a baby, because they may have stronger maternal instincts*.
You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
Even if it's not one of those situations. If you need double incomes to continue your lifestyle, then it must be done. (Of course, if you're at that stage, i would say don't have a kid to begin with, as it won't improve the situation, but that is neither here nor there.)
I know that, and agree with it. Ppl shouldn't have kids if they can't take care of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
*Not maternal as it relates to being a mother, but maternal as in having charteristics of a mother. I've seen guys coddle nice cars the same way I see women coo at their babies.
That's... just scary. O.o
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY. The comment from Thewanderer about how women who don't enjoy motherhood are "selfish" sickened me to nausea. Most animals don't even have parental care, and the offspring survive on their own just as well. In birds, the male does at least half of the child rearing. And the all too common "men are hunters women are gatherers" is derived from PREHISTORIC times, since nowadays it is virtually impossible to conduct evolutionary studies on humans let alone their sexes. Before patriarchial societies there were matriachal societies, and there is a lot of evidence that it is they who invented the first form of writing.
I for one, do not like babies. I can't bear staying at home and cleaning their diapers and all that other stuff. Thewanderer...please don't make ignorant assumptions. Things like changing diapers, etc, ARE NOT INNATE. In fact, about the only thing science has confirmed that says that women make better parents is that women are more sensitive to children and less prone to violence.
I sickened you? I'm ignorant? How do you get off comming in here and insulting me like this? I have zero intention of insulting anyone. I meant for this to be a friendly debate... please keep the insults to yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
Finally you stopped beating about the bush and said what you finally wanted to. And what makes them greedy? Please explain yourself, Mr. "nazi-ish b!tches"
Beating around the bush? I wasn't referring to feminists as such, just the ones who think they're superior to men. That's what makes them greedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
UMMMMM. DUDE. What the h*ll? Feminism is not about any of those things. It sickens me when people are so confident while they jabber away ABSOLUTE idioticy. You might want to do a search on Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) about what feminism is, and it certainly isn't about wearing skirts, or blushing more, about selflessness (I think you're confusing RELIGION with FEMINISM).
As for the "I'd thought feminism would encourage the father to nurture more and be present in his children's lives.Instead the mother was encouraged to spend as much time away from home and leave the children in institutions headed by strangers. (The first mistake of the Industrial Revolution was bringing the father out of the home. Both father and mother should be producers at home.)" :
If both the father and the mother work, then obviously the child needs to be taken care of. And it wasn' t the industrial revolution that took the father out; that has been since...way way long before the industrial revolution.
I'm a regular at Wikipedia, thank you very much. And I've studied that page in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
No, this thread isn't about feminism, it's just the only word I could think of when I made the topic. And again, please avoid the insults if you want anyone to take you seriously. Oh, and yes, I have read that.


For tl;dr: Basically, I'm all for the "Gender Equality" thing, but different genders still have differences beyond reproductive functions, and shouldn't be considered a weakness, but should be embraced as a strength.

This wasn't meant to be an argument, so please forgive me if I insulted anyone.
__________________

Last edited by Thewanderer; 2006-01-21 at 21:12.
Thewanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 22:11   Link #72
Nightbat®
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women

People seriously need do look up a word or two before they confidently start blabbering on and on about things. It makes one look like an idiot.
And please try to read this:
I hardly hear anyone claiming to be "Feminist" they seem to know what kind of
image that brings up with people


Most of us here are just "Common" people
and to some of us Feminism is starting to look more like the Superiority of women
than Freedom for women
you have the (rightfully) so-called "Fem-nazi's" to thank for that
they have no "Noble" cause, they base their crusade on Jealousy and revenge
They do not want equality, they want it all!
Playing the victim card to get what they want, justifying their Zero-tolerance and
Man-hate with all the freedoms their movement gained for women

As you found out, the term "Feminism" is used differently by scholars than by
"common" people

I fail to see the big deal about the use of certain terms to describe something

I never heard anyone complain about the use of the word "Lesbian"
while it should be the poet sapfos name to formulate Female/female Love
Writing erotic poems about women and running an all-girls school
-She just happened to live on Lesbos-

How about cancer? it's a starsign, it's the Latin name for crab and a disease
How do the people born in june/juli feel about that?
(Do Animal rights-activists feel sorry for the crab?)

and if we take things for what they really really represent:
the Swastika wouldn't be viewed as a symbol for racism and genocide
__________________
Nightbat® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 23:29   Link #73
arias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
This thread is really quite disturbing. It's as if not a single person read Diodati's post. MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FEMINISM IS. Feminism is NOT about claiming that women are superior. It's about FREEDOM of women (allowing them to do whatever they want, from being a housewife to a CEO), and about equal treatmen from SOCIETY
Right, that's the ideology in its "pure form". But some of us are talking about what feminism has BECOME, or how it's normally seen anyways. Thanks for mixing up different semantics and ignorance.
arias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 23:37   Link #74
Veritas
The Last Visible Dog
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
You name one man like that.
My dad. Raised his 3 younger sisters. You're honestly telling me that if you saw a crying baby (which is a universally recognizable indication that something is WRONG), you'd be baffled about what the problem could be? Then the problem is not that you have no instinct, but that you can't relate to people or you're stupid.
Quote:
I love kids, but I'd be scared to death if I was perminantly stuck with raising one by myself. Of course that's just me, but I can't see that it'd be much different than the majority of other men.
And a single mother would be peachy, since she's a woman. You seem to think that any woman would be better than any man at raising a child, simply because she's female.
Quote:
You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.
Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
__________________
I'm not going to neg rep you in return. Leave your name.

Last edited by Veritas; 2006-01-22 at 00:01.
Veritas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-21, 23:56   Link #75
Tsu
Burorororou
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Zubababaan
Age: 28
Send a message via MSN to Tsu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewanderer
You're just contradicting yourself. Females have stronger maternal instincts BECAUSE their female ancestors spent all the time with their offspring, thus evolved with the appropriate abilities.
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
__________________
Tsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-22, 00:13   Link #76
arias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
Cite the appropriate studies. It's generally recognized that general behavioral characteristics are inheritable. I am studying a CONTEMPORARY textbook in Psychology that says just that. Maybe you are talking about the inheritance of more *specific* characteristics, which is largely unproven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
I'm not siding with the person you're arguing with, but your argument is weak. Instincts don't come categorized -- they come in shades. That is, I think we all agree that "instincts" are evolved properties, yes? If you're a creationist or ID-supporter, then you can stop reading. If not, then we all recognize that our instincts to fear, breed and such are all products of evolution. And they come in different strengths -- individuals have each property to a different degree.

Citing your father or whoever relative, or whatever anecdote as a counter-example is a poor argument. What we're talking about is GENERAL POPULATION BEHAVIOR. Let's say we have a statistic that says taller people tend to earn more money (this is true, by the way). You can tell me about your short uncle Bob who's a billionaire, but it's hardly relevant. Statistics are information about the behavior and character of the general population. It can't tell you everything about every single individual. Just like you can't predict whether it's a tails or heads for your next coin toss, but you know it's going to be 50-50 in the long run (and yes, this has been demonstrated multiple times, particularly in WWII, where imprisoned mathematicians performed trials of 10,000+).

So proposing that males and females are different AS THEIR INDIVIDUAL POPULATIONS is not a ridiculous idea. Whether this extends to maternal instincts or not is a real hypothesis that deserves to be tested. It might be true, it might not be true. But certainly your extremist position and over-zealousness in trying to rubbish such claims are coloring your intellect. Sure, there might be males out there who are more sensitive than the average female, more 'maternal' than the average female, even.. but I think what statistics, and general statements such as "females = more maternal" are based on are the differences in population.

Learn.
arias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-22, 00:40   Link #77
uzumaki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by arias
Cite the appropriate studies. It's generally recognized that general behavioral characteristics are inheritable. I am studying a CONTEMPORARY textbook in Psychology that says just that. Maybe you are talking about the inheritance of more *specific* characteristics, which is largely unproven.


Learn.
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with [].

(and if someone wants to be considered superior to someone, thewanderer, it does not make them "greedy" [another error that an elementary grade kid would not have made] it makes them a CHAUVINIST)
uzumaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-22, 00:53   Link #78
Thewanderer
Hiyori Fanboy
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Thewanderer Send a message via Yahoo to Thewanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas
My dad. Raised his 3 younger sisters. You're honestly telling me that if you saw a crying baby (which is a universally recognizable indication that something is WRONG), you'd be baffled about what the problem could be? Then the problem is not that you have no instinct, but that you can't relate to people or you're stupid. And a single mother would be peachy, since she's a woman. You seem to think that any woman would be better than any man at raising a child, simply because she's female. Yeah, and I'm sure being given dolls to play with has nothing to do with it. I asked you to name one instinct that women have that men don't when it comes to raising babies. You didn't. Because there isn't one.
No, I didn't because I forgot to. Please don't be harsh like this, I'm not trying to argue. Heck, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. You're talking to me like I think I know everything, which I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsu
What you just described is Lamarckism or the "inheritance of acquired characteristics". It's been discredited and is generally considered protoscience.
Okay... though I still think it's some form of Natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with [].
Please don't try to argue with each other I don't want this to turn into a fight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
(and if someone wants to be considered superior to someone, thewanderer, it does not make them "greedy" [another error that an elementary grade kid would not have made] it makes them a CHAUVINIST)
Okay, I used the wrong word. Sorry, I have a habbit of doing that.
__________________
Thewanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-22, 01:12   Link #79
TrueKnight
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
I kinda figured that it somehow would turn this way... But still its funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
I don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I'd rather not waste my time on some narrow minded kids. Diodati was smart to make a last post, since they knew it was worthless arguing with
You actually just killed yourself with your remark, saying you know more about feminism just because your female; and disregarding and degrading the OPINION from all the male around here, wake up girl.

I've encountered much feminism in my life, I won't give an example, but it comes especially from bitches that they think that they could take a man's job and fucking demanding equality, but ended up saying the phrase "ladies first".
TrueKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-01-22, 01:46   Link #80
arias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzumaki
Omg...you just ended a comment defending Lamarckism with "Learn." This is disgusting beyond belief. From people starting a thread on feminism when they don't know shit about it, to supporting a discarded theory from evidence in a psychology textbook....
... I read up about Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). Guess what? It's entirely different from what you said, and what I said.

Basically what Lamarckism is --- a theory that acquired differences in an individual organism will be passed down genetically. This is wrong, of course. If any person, from childhood, is trained to be muscular, this doesn't mean that the person's offspring will be muscular. There is no effect on the reproductive cells/genes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by from Wiki
Lamarckism held that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed on to the offspring. Lamarck based his theory on two observations, in his day considered to be generally true

What I said was BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS were found to be inheritable. Two smart parents (genetically smart) have a tendency to produce smart offspring. Two angry, violent parents (genetically so) have a tendency to produce angry, violent offspring. This is true.


So there. I have thoroughly trashed your post, and I hope you come to your senses.
arias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.