Misogyny

Thank you, the only one who noticed or read it. :laughing:

Mr Reasonable wrote:

Women have been seen for most of history as chattels and have not enjoyed equality until recent times. Please do not be one of those who use that tired old worn “feminist” to gather points for your argument. I think you have overlooked the fact that my comments were specifically about this Forum, but to challenge your opinion of equality in philosophy per se for the sexes, I will venture further afield and agree there is little or no CONSCIOUS discrimination against women in philosophy, but it cannot be discounted that there is UNCONSCIOUS bias. The question is why this should be more prevalent in philosophy. The answer I think is what I stated initially that philosophers or those men involved in philosophy forums have an inflated view of their ‘intellectual’ prowess or ability to argue their point to the nth degree. What seems to be lost and what I am advocating is that the argument, not the arguer, is what matters the most and that logic is gender neutral.

Except perhaps Uccisore. LOL.

I think that among professional level philosophers, the logic is what counts. These boards are mostly about politics. You could start a thread about modal operators and structural empiricism, and someone would figure out a way to make it about race or gender or class. Politics is where the less educated and more emotional usually end up when it comes down to it. Analysis for the sake of analysis is boring to the needy and the victimized and the emotionally injured. So everything ends up as it does in most cases here. It’s kind of sad, but it can be entertaining at least.

About Uccisore…does a person have to be a leftist to point out that Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity are right wing nutjobs? I contend that one does not. People who can’t get outside the kind of thinking that revolves around binary distinctions are well…not philosophical, and in most cases boring, and in some cases frustrating to try and have any kind of discourse with. Again, just the sad way that some things really are.

I just woke up too, so we need to make a rule that when we talk, at least one of us should be awake :laughing:

I’m not sure about self-centeredness because I specifically put thought into how the word would be interpreted and I figured someone would eventually take issue with my choice of words and was prepared for that eventuality, but couldn’t think of a better word to portray what I wanted. These sorts of linguistical liberties are taken in poetry and song because they’re a compact way of transferring ideas, for instance: The wind was sighing, howling, moaning. The neon lights stabbed my eyes through the darkness.

I had to look up intervention bias. Interesting. I think think it plays along with personification of the inanimate as a survival strategy that was selected for.

James said something that was profoundly insightful which is evolution only works if it’s resisted. If you think about it, there must be a competitive force that is fighting, resisting life in order for natural selection to work. If there were no resistance, there would be no selection and no means to evolve into higher life. So if there is resistance, there must be a greater force driving forward that overcomes the resistance.

Why don’t you agree?

Same thing happened in Rome before the fall. Where the pigs go, the empire goes. heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12 … l-of-rome/

Making men and women the same does not work because it’s not complementary. Think what would happen to the universe if cations and anions were both neutrally charged. Opposites are what makes the world go 'round and if you try to make it not-so, then you will be selected against. I mean, you may think you’re winning for a while just as Rome held on for a couple 100 years before falling victim to its own prosperity, but remember that evolution overcomes resistance and time moves faster in this technological age.

We were more ape-like back then which included a more ape-like gut for the digestion of vegetation (ie we didn’t hunt). The disappearance of fur and the appearance of sweating coincided with hunting and then came cooking and then language developed as we sat around the fire picking bugs off each other. (Watch that video; they still picked bugs from each other… and ate them.)

Female cats are better hunters because they have to feed a litter of kittens AND catch enough to feed the fatass male who constantly steals her food. Cats usually have a litter of about 5-6 kittens and they do that about once per year or less, so even if most of the kittens die, they still have a good shot at preserving the species over an expected lifespan of 2-4 yrs in urban areas with coyotes and traffic. Humans are a little different since the mother couldn’t abandon the baby for a spell to go hunting to feed a lazy man, so instead, the man went hunting to feed the family.

Lion males are absolutely worthless. They do nothing but lay in the shade and pee on things. The females do the hunting and then the male comes to take his share before going back to laying in the shade and about the only contribution of the male is in driving away the jackals.

There is no truth to that because show me a hunter who would not LOVE for his wife to go hunting with him. Women utterly refuse to take any interest in things that interest men even though men are begging them to do so.

They’ve done studies of babies and found no amount of coaxing the get girls to play with boy-toys because it sucks and isn’t fun.

Good video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/youtube]

At around 22:00, he says that babies one day old will look longer at faces if they are girls and mechanical objects if they are boys. How can it be attributed to culture at one day old? Of course, evidence just makes people dig in and strengthens their resolve to push gender equality.

Well it’s centered around our big brains which cause lots of time invested into raising a human which developed into a culture with circular feedback effects, but the brain is the reason. If humans had a small brain like cats, then not only would we not be capable of discussing this, but the problem wouldn’t exist since babies would be more expendable, numerous, self-sufficient, etc and women wouldn’t need to be tied down.

So it’s not like a bunch of big guys got together and planned to subjugate women because they thought it would be cool, but it evolved into a culture that defined subjugation as a thing to complain about which previously wasn’t viewed by women as subjugation at all. Because of our technology and prosperity, we’re looking for new things to complain about since finding food is no longer a problem.

Prosperity causes its own destruction since evolution requires resistance and anytime an organism gets too prolific, its population is always brought back into check. Though, in the case of dinosaurs, it took 100 million years, but they had to get out of the way because they were clearly much more successful than mammals and if mammals were to have a chance at domination, the dinosaurs had to go. How they went, I don’t know, but I’ve incubated goose eggs before and I’m here to tell you that those creatures are hardy! They grow extremely fast, heal fast, mature quickly, can stand in sub-freezing temps on one leg, sleeping, with their heads under their wings and defy logic for how their legs do not freeze and also withstand the hottest summers. Dinosaurs totally kicked our ass, but I’m sure that in some way their own success led to their downfall because it’s conditional for evolution for it to be so.

Aren’t you letting crap get to you? You want to be mean to men who are mean to women who were mean to men because you let crap get to you. And now you say men need to harden up and learn to eat crap and let women be as mean as they want without returning the favor.

statisticbrain.com/iq-estim … ege-major/

Physics & Astronomy 533 736 1269 133
Philosophy 590 638 1228 129
Mathematical Sciences 502 733 1235 130
Materials Engineering 494 727 1221 129
Economics 503 706 1209 128
Chemical Engineering 485 726 1211 128
Other Engineering 493 714 1207 128
Mechanical Engineering 469 724 1193 126
Other Humanities & Art 563 599 1162 124
Physical Sciences 486 697 1183 125
Engineering 468 719 1187 126
Electrical Engineering 459 726 1185 126
Banking & finance 467 711 1178 125

It seems that verbal ability is less important than spacial, though less pronounced in philosophy than physics.

And here verbal is roughly the same, but without the spacial pronouncement:

English Language & Literature 560 553 1113 120
Humanities & Arts 545 566 1111 120
Arts-History, Theory 539 572 1111 120
Biological Sciences 491 631 1122 121
Political Science 524 588 1112 120
Foreign Languages & Literature 531 574 1105 119

It’s a function of testosterone levels during development of the brain that explains the prevalence of gender in specific majors, but it’s only comparing 2 of the 8-9 aspects of intelligence which paints an unfair picture imo, so I don’t see it as derogatory towards women, but the yardstick is biased towards men.

Inflated view = Dunning-Kruger which has been demonstrated in both sexes.

In one study, women showed more “inflated view” of their prowess on language-specific tests than men. In other words, if you believe you should be good at something, you will overestimate your ability. Conversely, if you do not believe you’re good at a task, you will accurately estimate your ability. It’s egoic.

Now, one difference I’ve noticed is that women are more likely to back down from an argument than men, which is testosterone-linked; therefore maybe women are more-able to admit error and self-correct than the men who confidently plow ahead. But that’s just a theory I’ve been toying with lately.

Most definitely! But people like to categorize and pigeonhole, especially men who are the systemizers.

It’s not sexism to admit that men and women have different propensities for knowledge or intelligence simply for the fact we go about things differently. There are sexual differences between women not just biologically but mentally also.

As of yet I have never found anybody to refute this.

They say we shouldn’t talk about it because it’s not productive and only results in further underrepresentation of women in the STEM jobs. That’s the refute.

Watched your vid. Seredipper. Biology is a reality concerning everything we are and become with nurture playing a much lesser influential role, why science fights reality is simply progressive ridiculousness. Almost everything non-specific, not taken from an individualized aspect, is a generalization that fits the majority of that type concerning men and women. I think my testosterone level was a bit on the high side in the womb since I’ve always tended to be a tomboy. spitting

I’m impressed! Someone desiring the truth :wink:

Yes I think so too. After all, only 7% of Scott Kelly’s genes changed after a year in space :smiley:

No, space did not permanently alter 7 percent of Scott Kelly’s DNA

That might explain why you’re one of the more active women on ILP. Do you like to take chances or prefer to play it safe?

I have read that although men still outperform women in sports such as running and swimming (not weight lifting and such) that the gap is closing and perhaps one day a woman may be speedier than the fastest man. I’m not sure how to explain that. Could men and women be genetically converging?

Oops… guess it’s already happened:

Yet, the long-standing issue of whether women’s performance will eventually “equal” that of men’s surfaced again during the 2012 London Games when the final freestyle split of the 400-m individual medley of Ye Shinwen (28.93 s) surpassed that of male gold-medalist Ryan Lochte (29.10) and tied over the final 100 m (58.65 to Ye’s 58.68), although the overall performance time was 23.25 seconds faster (9.5%) for Lochte. The initial reaction was to suspect that artificial enhancement (ie, doping) had provided the biological advantages typically ascribed to androgenic hormones (eg, enhanced muscle mass, oxygen-carrying capacity). The gender gap in sport, although closing over recent decades, remains, due in part to biological differences but also to societal and cultural influences.

The Gender Gap in Sport Performance: Equity Influences Equality (PDF Download Available). Available from: researchgate.net/publicatio … s_Equality [accessed Mar 17 2018].

Oh, I know. It’s a part of a much more social political sinister agenda being played out in the west.

Scott grew two inches taller while in space according to last evenings news piece.

I’ve always leaned towards risk taking. :stuck_out_tongue:

Dang… an astronaut and taller… what more can a woman ask for? :laughing:

Yeah me too. I’m not sure if it’s T or my mother being overprotective :-k

Mental states are biological states.

Also Ryan Lochte was as high as a kite, or hung over from the night before. Have you ever heard that guy speak? I don’t think it was the other athlete’s performance enhancing drugs, I think it was Lochte’s performance reducing ones.

Serendipper

Now for a confession - not all of what I wrote I believe myself but taking the conventional route seemed like the lame way to go with this topic so I wanted to add some fuel to the fire - it seems to have worked. Now I will only answer what I find applicable from angles I agree with to an extent.

No, I was not talking about you being self centered. I was speaking about our English language not being expressive enough from the other side of the coin for most topics and this becomes very apparent in philosophy - leading to artifacts like intervention bias. This topic in itself is tricky so I will say nothing more of it here. The main thing to take away is that I am not thinking of you or what you are saying as self-centered - I am certainly not saying that you add a drastic amount of opinion to what you say.

That sounds pretty damn correct to me - for there must be a greater force, driving forward, that overcomes the resistance.

Let me put my response a different way - I agree with 98% of what you are saying here plus or minis 2%, which I think is an acceptable degree to say that I agree.

As for the rest of your post I found it very interesting and I would say that I agree with about 85% of it.

Do you think culture might play a part in evolution? Selection of mates for mating etc.?

Good idea! I just mentioned yesterday in urwrong’s thread that playing devil’s advocate may be a good strategy for adding content and practice for debating with dispassionate passion :slight_smile:

Oh okie dokie.

This reminds me of the Amplified Bible which strives to be as clear as language will allow:

An excellent woman [one who is spiritual, capable, intelligent, and virtuous], who is he who can find her? Her value is more precious than jewels and her worth is far above rubies or pearls.

As opposed to the same verse in the King James:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

It appears the idea dawned on him the spring of 2014. Er, I guess it would be Fall for you.

Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a “stronger” state or person. But the goal of the original person was not to die out and leave something behind that would be stronger. If that goal is consciously chosen, evolution no longer works. For evolution to work, one must resist it at all cost. It is by not being able to resist evolution sufficiently that evolution wins the battle and destroys the weaker state, leaving only the stronger. But if evolution is intentionally chosen, the new state is the result of a prior choice, not a prior contest of strength. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185497&p=2461761&hilit=evolution+resist#p2461761

And “we humans” want to control evolution to our own design.
Of course, evolution only works when you try to resist it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185374&p=2459223&hilit=evolution+resist#p2459223

And this is a good thread: Is Evolution True? Apparently James was/is a theist.

But yes, it seems there would have to be a ubiquitous will driving it forward and now we’ve circled around to Alan Watts’ observation that “mineral is a simple form of consciousness instead of consciousness being a complicated form of mineral.” I mean, it makes no sense to have consciousness spring forth from magic once elements are plugged into specific configurations. Consciousness, life, must exist in degrees of complexity; not caused by degrees of complexity.

You can’t leave me hanging wondering what the 2% is lol

So… I earned a B+ :smiley:

Yes, of course, it’s circular. My head in is my mind and my mind is in my head and my head is in my mind and… on and on in a feedback loop. Evolution influences culture which influences evolution which influences culture…

Subject/object, resistance/force, organism/environment, duality ad infinitum.

You have to somehow get your head around the fact that these infinite regressions, insoluble puzzles, can only indicate one thing: if you’re in a trap you can’t get out of, then you and the trap are the same thing and there is no trap nor anyone to get out of it; it’s a camera looking at its own monitor.

Yes a quick example of that is the advancement in technology that has reduced infant mortality which enabled skinny women to be seen as sexier than women who had a shape more conducive to giving healthy births. Look at the women portrayed in old art and compare to what “sexy” is today.

Skinny faces with crowded teeth is a calcium deficiency, but is sexy because of modern dentistry. In old times, what we consider sexy would be considered sickly.

And then there is this:

Analyses of the
National Child Development Study show that more intelligent men and women express
preference to remain childless early in their reproductive careers, but only more intelligent
women (not more intelligent men) are more likely to remain childless
by the end of their
reproductive careers. Controlling for education and earnings does not at all attenuate the
association between childhood general intelligence and lifetime childlessness among
women. One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points)
decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact
on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is
predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced
industrial nations.
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ae3/f … 16d9d7.pdf

Since women may have greater impact on the general intelligence of the
future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women – where less intelligent women are more likely to have children than
more intelligent women – may lead to the prediction, supported by recent studies, that the average level of intelligence may
steadily decline throughout the 21st century.

It would seem that the empowerment of women is shooting ourselves in the foot. Whatever we are consciously trying to do, evolution will be fighting it. So all this progressiveness can only lead to one end.

Prosperity causes its own destruction as generations lose sight of why silly traditions exist.

LOL! No I’ve no clue who those people are, but it seems women are catching up because they are overtaking the times of the best men from the past, I’m assuming.

I may have answered my own question through realizing that technology has changed what men view as sexy and that may be contributing to the evolution of women being more athletic since they don’t need to be fat cows anymore to bear children that survive. So I guess men and women are genetically converging. Women don’t need to be as womanly in modern times and it seems that men prefer that they not be, since they could share more common interests.

Serendipper

Brilliant post, I particularly like the following:

Congratulations on a very thoughtful post.

:smiley:

Basically feminism is a social economic conspiracy against western civilization by those that want to see western civilization annihilated. The best way to destroy a civilization is to sexually divide men and women along with the natural impulses of reproduction or having a family.

Feminism is a social economic weapon of depopulation but more importantly it is a cultural identity destroyer because every nation at its heart revolves around reproduction between men and women, all national identities springs fourth between that union and bond. Destroy that union and bond you essentially destroy a nation.

To do this you need to focus all females attention or energies on non-reproductive activities of careerism and education in the most fertile periods of their lifespans where once they start realizing things at an older age they’ve already become infertile to do anything about it. You also create a narrative of tyrannical patriarchy by painting a broad stroke that behind every man there is a rapist, monster, or sexual tyrant. The goal there is to alienate men and women from each other. Disunity between the sexes culturally, existentially, and socially is a way to bring any nation to its knees.

While there is the preaching of overpopulation where it is said that it is better to not have children at all you import endless amounts of foreigners that breed like rabbits paying for their existence with a welfare system that essentially financially bankrupts an entire nation.

The message is clear, white Europeans don’t breed but all the foreigners are supported to do the direct opposite.

Feminism is pushed heavily onto white ethnic European women because in the state’s words the goal is to destroy all whiteness and if ethnic white European women were to stop focusing on careers or education instead having children within a family in large numbers the first comment out of the corrupt state we live under would be that it is a catastrophe that needs to be corrected it that isn’t normal under their plans of the new normal.

Once you understand feminism as the direct result of a pogrom to eradicate whiteness and destroy western civilization it becomes much easier to understand what it is all about. This is why I pity women because most aren’t smart enough to know what they’ve been manipulated into doing and when they eventually wisen up over a period of time if at all the best fertile years of their lives is simply gone. It’s all a horrible tragedy that takes its toll on both men and women alike.

Thanks and I appreciate the feedback, but they’re just ideas I stumbled upon or the random epiphanies.

I had a talk with grandma a few years ago. She didn’t learn to drive until 35 (and by some measures, she still hasn’t yet learned lol). Women in her day were completely dependent upon men. I asked her what a single mother would have done back then and she replied “Oh gosh, I don’t know, go to a charity or church or something.” And that was only the 1940s and 50s she was talking about. If we go further back in time, a woman didn’t have a chance on her own; hence the importance of the tradition of the sanctity of marriage. A man had to vow to always care for his wife lest she starve or worse.

But today marriage seems an antiquated tradition since women drive just fine, have plenty of job opportunities, and the state has stepped in to be the provider (husband) of last resort. Children are increasingly being raised in fatherless homes or having strange men come and go. There is nothing in our evolution to have prepared us for these swift changes that technology has brought.

THIS ACCIDENTAL EXPERIMENT SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF PATRIARCHY

[i]Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.

‘Where is your hut?’, they asked.

‘We have no hut’

‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed

‘We ate all the rice’

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe. The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available. They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what patriarchy is. My former roommate, unsurprisingly, is no longer a feminist.[/i]

Now this might all be a fluke, a white raven, an exceptional case not representative of society as whole. But that particular season of Dutch Survivor is not unique. CBS broadcast several Survivor seasons in the US, where men and women started off in separate groups. In most cases (the Amazon and One World), the result was the same. The men quickly got their act together, getting access to food, fire and shelter while the women spent a lot of time and energy on petty little squabbles, eating their meager supplies, getting drenched in storms and generally being pathetic. The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.