Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

You can argue until you are blue in the face with your lies, deceit, argumentative lack of logic.

I understand that you don't actually CARE about this subject. You are trolling for fans, people who agree with this horse# because it appeals to their sense of entitlement, slight, and misogyny.

Still, shame on you.

The lack of logic displayed by the fact that you continue to post this stuff in a thread with a title that displays a profound lack of understanding of humanity and genes itself, and that you continue to use it to make emotional appeals on the hate of half of the species is ... disturbed.

I wish that intelligence and understanding was all that was between you and being a better person. Your inability to even be challenged by reality provides all the answer anyone in this thread should need.

Facts, reality, science, statistics, observable reality really do not matter. And they don't matter to a fairly large section of the populace.

reply to post by BigfootNZ

If you'd thoroughly read the article or genuinely understood it, you'd realize that it's not males being victimized by feminization trends as you suggest but there are actual physical differences in male vs. female brains.

Certain areas of the brain are used by males, other parts are used by females. Males generally do not learn as well in an environment that requires sitting and listening to a lecture. Females do.

Since these discoveries were made there have been concerted efforts to incorporate both learning styles in the classroom. It also indicates that males have an attention span of about 1 minute, making lectures on any topic difficult.

It might stand to be noticed, that before women were hated for being in the classroom - the male teachers and the male dominated schools STILL had boys sit all day. And beat them if they didn't do so quietly.

It isn't as if the system was somehow "better" before. At least the newer system is adaptable and willing to adapt to get the best out of it.

Originally posted by whitewave

If you'd thoroughly read the article or genuinely understood it, you'd realize that it's not males being victimized by feminization trends as you suggest but there are actual physical differences in male vs. female brains.

Certain areas of the brain are used by males, other parts are used by females. Males generally do not learn as well in an environment that requires sitting and listening to a lecture. Females do.

I understood where the article was coming from easily, my comment about the feminization of education effecting boys was not directly tied to the article you qouted in your post that I was commenting on.

I know and agree whole heartedly that there is a difference in mental wiring in males and females, what I was saying is its not clear cut, citing that as an example myself, I have many female mental traits like the ones you mentioned, maybe not as strong as a female, but still stronger than the typical males i see every day. I wasnt discrediting what they where saying, just that its a little cart blanch. Im all for teaching males to get in touch and to bolster their female mental wiring, and for females to get in touch with their male mental wiring.

My feminization of education comment was an aside showing that there has been in the last few decades a trend by some individuals (and yes they are female) to almost apply the old 'male oppression' of yester years onto the male population as some sort of punishment, an eye for an eye if you will.

Yes males suppressed females for centuries in education and learning I dont deny that at all, but to turn around when they finally are given equality and attempt to do unto them as they did unto you is just flat out wrong (and you cannot deny that there was and still very much are a good number of individuals who still have an almost militant feminist ideal)... I lived through the educational changes, I saw the effect it had on male learning and had a parent that worked as a teacher who saw the education system changed from one side to the other in a short period of time, along with seeing the effects such changes had on male learning... my younger brother was one of those males who found the more female orientated education system impossible and as such he achieved poorly and found education a chore and dropped out early... but thanks to a supportive family and a strong personality he got on with his life and is very successful.

The changes happened the trends and decline of male learning are well documented and fact, and I was there in the system as it happened. The thing is was it on purpose?, or was it a natural swing to the extreme from one to the other when a change occurs... since it was human driven id say it was on purpose.

Originally posted by whitewave

Since these discoveries were made there have been concerted efforts to incorporate both learning styles in the classroom. It also indicates that males have an attention span of about 1 minute, making lectures on any topic difficult.

Not disagreeing with you, what I was pointing out is there are stalwart individuals in the system with alot of power that seem to want to either return to the old male dominated system or want a female dominated system... its those people I have the issue with not yourself. To deny its happening is to deny the quoted trends and the current situation male learning is in, it didnt happen by itself, it happened since the system changed a particular way... and its good its changing for the better, just not fast enough... resulting in thousands and thousands of male children missing out on a good education and becoming disgruntled individuals.

And way to go suddenly ending your post on a stereotypical using foot in mouth... my attention span as well as with millions of other males is alot longer than 1 minute thank you very much, and if i didnt think it silly id call you sexist... but being male I dont think id be allowed to use such a term.

Attention span is based on personal interest... I could bore the crap out of you in seconds on discussions about the current trends and techniques in 3D modeling/artwork and animation... has nothing to do with some perceived gender based attributes. The same way i can be engrossed in social intrigue and he said, she said gossip of a good drama from now and then.

All this thread has really achieved is shown the old prejudices are still going strong, and yes us males have created a female version of our previous selves... we reap what we sow i guess, but given where supposed to be as a species better than that now days the fact its taking so long to find a neutral ground is kinda sad.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by BigfootNZ]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

No one really ever wins the argument no one ever really looses the argument as the argument never truly gets settled, no real consensus or agreement is every reached, just temporary agreements between parties that simply have run out of time and or energy to keep pursuing the argument.

People do win arguments. People simply dont always convince the person they are arguing with.

You mistake my motive. I could really care less about asserting my dominance over him. What I do enjoy is a good debate.

In formal argument there IS a winner. It is the person who follows the rules of the game. And yes, argumentative logic IS a game. I am well aware that there are only a small percentage of people who actually know the rules of the game, so I dont expect to "win" by majority vote.

I argue for my own sake. Because like any skill, it is sharpened by practice. And, because there are one or two people reading the debate who may have a real interest in formal argument, and they may learn a thing or two about fallacies, and how people commit them to convince the masses they are "right." I also initially assumed that he was deliberately trying to be tricky, and that that might indicate he was good at formal argument. Some people deliberately use argumentative fallacies because the bulk of people who dont understand logic, will accept them. Unfortunately, I discovered during the course of the argument that he really doesnt know he is misusing the fallacies, which makes the argument much less fun for me.

He knows the terms, and he even has some understanding about what those terms should be applied to, for instance;

Originally posted by Edrick
The argument with Gorman91 that I was referring to was a slippery slope.

He claimed that the women in the lives of great inventors were responsible for the inventors achievements.

"Why Stop There?" I asked myself, and started contributing the achievements of our inventors to cobblers, butchers, bakers, etc, that could have fed and clothed our inventors.

The argument *IS* moving the goalpost, and VERY slippery, because if you go down that road, No one is responsible for ANYTHING.

Do you get my point, or are you going to attempt another Ad Homenim?

While our friend does correctly identify a "slippery slope fallacy," with this reasoning, he is utterly unaware that he is the one committing it.

en.wikipedia.org...

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

Arguing (in the formal sense) with someone who doesnt know the rules is much less fun than arguing with someone who knows the rules and is deliberately twisting them to persuade. So while I appreciate the peace and love message, there is no war here. Formal argument is like chess, it is battle, it is strategic, but it isnt war. Arguing with someone who honestly doesnt understand the rules, is not chess. Its pointless.

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

My feminization of education comment was an aside showing that there has been in the last few decades a trend by some individuals (and yes they are female) to almost apply the old 'male oppression' of yester years onto the male population as some sort of punishment, an eye for an eye if you will.

Yes males suppressed females for centuries in education and learning I dont deny that at all, but to turn around when they finally are given equality and attempt to do unto them as they did unto you is just flat out wrong (and you cannot deny that there was and still very much are a good number of individuals who still have an almost militant feminist ideal)...

I personally agree with you on this point, there are indeed females who are bitter about the historical oppression, and even about sexism they personally face, and they then decide that that somehow entitles them to be vengeful and belittling of men in retaliation. I also note that there are "minorities" who also sometimes feel it is okay to be hateful or racist to Europeans based on historical or personal experiences of discrimination. And, you are correct. It isnt ok. "They did it first" is a weak argument, and it is made even weaker by the fact that the "they" that is being attacked in such a fashion often bears no personal responsibility for the original "crime."

However, sometimes it is the case that a system that has had longstanding and built in biases has to be revamped in order to be more neutral. I do agree that it should not swing the other way, and be made to favor the other party at the expense of the first party, but sometimes the first party feels that simply removing a bias that favored them IS changing the system in favor of the second party. Its tricky ground.

As for your having a lot of female brain qualities, it isnt unusual. "Male/fem,ale" brain qualities are not absolutes. It is a scale.

Male........................Female

The end points have more of one gender than the other, but they are not exclusively one gender or the other. And, people fall all along the continuum, not only at the ends.

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
The changes happened the trends and decline of male learning are well documented and fact, and I was there in the system as it happened. The thing is was it on purpose?, or was it a natural swing to the extreme from one to the other when a change occurs... since it was human driven id say it was on purpose.

It could be, and in some cases with individual schools or teachers, it may well be. However, it is probable that because women had been locked out of education, and conditioned not to seek certain types of education even after they were able to pursue it, it was inevitable that once they began competing with men, there were going to be a fair number of men knocked out of the competition.

And, if the rules of the game, being set up by men, favored men, it is also likely that removing the favorable bias is inherently going to make things harder for them. Instilling a bias towards females would also be unfair, however, the goal should be to even it out so that no one side is bearing the full burden of gender bias. We should be expecting people to rise and fall on their own merit and hard work, not because the rules of the game have been written in such a way that they benefit unfairly.

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
Not disagreeing with you, what I was pointing out is there are stalwart individuals in the system with alot of power that seem to want to either return to the old male dominated system or want a female dominated system... its those people I have the issue with not yourself.

I think you are correct in this assessment. I have thought about it as it applies to racism too. Unfortunately, I think that those people who feel that way are simply going to have to die off, and we are in the meanwhile going to have to try to limit the number of new recruits to their discriminatory view. I think that people who hold the opinion in this day and age that discrimination against women, men or other races, is justified, are intractable. They believe it because they want to, because it serves them psychologically to do so. Logic cant touch that. You can lead a horse to data, but you cant make them read or understand it.

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
All this thread has really achieved is shown the old prejudices are still going strong, and yes us males have created a female version of our previous selves... we reap what we sow i guess, but given where supposed to be as a species better than that now days the fact its taking so long to find a neutral ground is kinda sad.

It is sad. And the fact of the matter is, that a lot of the people, male, female, black, white, who are reaping this crap had nothing to do with the sowing of it. Call people on it, like you are here. You are not guilty of any crime committed by "men" upon anyone. You as an individual are responsible for your own choices and actions alone. And dont let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

Originally posted by Edrick

Einstein was good at connecting the dots. Not even in a unique way, because he didn't form some new way of looking at the universe. He basically took the universe and drew a grid in 3d. Not new.

Oh, really? who did Einsteins work before him?

Albert Einstein, The Incorrigible Plagiarist

(Christopher Jon Bjerknes)

It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority. The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange, Woldemar Voigt, George Francis FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincaré, Paul Drude, Paul Langevin, and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect, though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.

Albert Einstein's first work on the theory of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper on the "principle of relativity" alone. His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.

If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not.
. . .
Though Einstein's 1905 article contained no references, it was so strikingly similar to a paper written by Hendrik Lorentz the previous year, that Walter Kaufmann and Max Planck felt a need to publicly point out that Einstein had merely provided a metaphysical reinterpretation and generalisation of Lorentz' scientific theory, a metaphysical reinterpretation and generalisation Henri Poincare had already published.

As Charles Nordmann, astronomer to the Paris Observatory, pointed out: ''It is really to Henri Poincare, the great Frenchman whose death has left a void that will never be filled, that we must accord the merit of having first proved, with the greatest lucidity and the most prudent audacity, that time and space, as we know them, can only be relative. A few quotations from his works will not be out of place. They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincare.''

Albert Einstein, Plagiarist of the Century

Charles Nordman was prompted to write,

"They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special relativity theory as has the public.

"Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956).

G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted,

"It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz!"

Einstein was as intellectually dishonest as they come.

reply to post by Kailassa

There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper on the "principle of relativity" alone. His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.

"They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special relativity theory as has the public.

"Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true"

So... You are basically saying, that Einsteins WIFE was a plagiarist, AND a Forger?

Wow... you don't like her much, do you?

-Edrick

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Who argued that women being kept away from education was due to an inherent disposition of men?

To some extent it has been.

I'm going to tell some of my own story. Not because I'm special, but because I'm not. The sort of problems that affected my ability to study are typical of those affecting women in general.

I was born in 1954, just to place this in it's historical context.

My brothers were given Lego type building blocks and Mechano to play with. I was not allowed to play with these, but instead was kept busy doing the "women's work", cooking and cleaning. My 6 brothers contributed by taking it in turns to chop the wood, an activity I enjoyed but was not allowed to do.

I wanted to learn to drive, as my father had taught my brothers, but no-one would teach me. I was told girls shouldn't drive. I wanted to do holiday work for the forestry, as my brothers did, but was told that was men's work. When I insisted, at 14, I was as good as any man, Dad gave me a job. My brothers had been employed in the nursery together, potting cuttings. But I was driven up a snake-infested hill and left there, in 110*F heat, tasked with slashing my way through 10 acres of 6' high blackberries, to find every bit of ragwort, pull it up by the roots and bag it.
As innocent as Radha who collected water for Krishna in a sieve, I stayed blissfully unaware that this was a cruel joke concocted by my father and other forestry guys, to teach me my place, and simply did the job, grateful to be given it. The forestry guys never laughed at me again after that. I found out years later that a group of 6 men had previously been given the job, tried, and said it was impossible.

At 11 my class at school were given I.Q. tests. As I got everything correct I couldn't be given a score, and the government wanted to give me special education. However I was not even told about that offer at the time, my parents refused because I was only a girl. My oldest brother had been given the same offer early on, and was very happy attending special classes at Melbourne Boys High. I was pretty miserable at school, getting hell from some teachers who hated me knowing more than they did, (some others were great and gave me challenges,) and spending every spare moment reading and learning, and tutoring the kids with learning difficulties.

Going to high school, as I was a girl, meant sewing and cooking classes while the boys studied mechanical drawing, woodwork and metal work. I was capable of all of them, and wanted to do the boys subjects because I was already proficient in the girls ones and regarded them as drudgery. But no girls were allowed to study the boys subjects. Of course this was stupidly discriminatory against the boys too. I don't claim that sexual stereotyping only affected females.

I was always top in maths and science, and wanted to be a doctor. However at the beginning of year 10, (at 14) The principal visited my parents to persuade me to give up the idea, explaining I'd be a freak if I studied those things, and nobody wanted to marry a freak. I argued, insisting I was going to be a doctor, and in revenge they put me in a class with the "bad dumb kids", the ones who couldn't managing book learning too well and did mainly technical classes. Luckily I got on well with the miscreants, and, as I couldn't go to the classes I wanted, I studied for myself and held those classes for the others in my class at lunchtime. I got school support there, and those kids turned out to be not so dumb after all, and to have a huge desire to learn once they were in an understanding environment.

So I got into a tertiary course that bored me, couldn't see the point of studying in those conditions, and went off hitch-hiking, getting to know Australia instead. I got a job for a while as a tracer, which those mechanical drawing classes would have been handy for. In those days drafting courses were only open to males. Girls did the much shorter tracing course, which left them doing the same work, but for much less pay. I was designing electrical switchboards for factories, with no supervision, for $40 a week. The guys in the factory who built these were lovely. I used to turn up at their starting time and they taught me how these things needed to be designed.

Later, after having a baby, I went to evening classes, doing the maths and science I'd missed out on. The physics and maths teachers, right through, treated me like crap, making fun of me, (Calling me the girl who thinks she can wear trousers, the girl who thinks girls have brains, and asking why I wasn't at home studying Freud.),) and when I got 100% in year 12 physics the guy in class I was friends with hated me. I qualified for medicine, but then got pregnant again, (yes, I know about birth control but it never worked for me,) and my baby was severely handicapped, so I was kept busy with motherhood.

After having a 3rd baby, who was also handicapped, I studied clinical massage, nutrition and homoeopathy. In a way I've achieved my wish to be a doctor, because I've treated some of the best doctors in my state and they've referred patients to me who they couldn't treat. I've cured a few for them who they believed were terminal. There are some things you can achieve through building health which you cannot achieve with drugs.

By the way, my studies were not wasted, which is the excuse most often given in those days for not educating women. My children have benefited from having me able to explain concepts to them and tutor them when need be.

So I'm one of those women who've slipped under the radar. I've got the brains, I've achieved a lot more than I've listed here, but I'll never be recorded in any history book. Instead, I've worked caring for people, and making this world a better place. Just as billions of other women have done.

The root of what has kept women down is biology, our need for support while raising children has generally given men the upper hand in society. Men have realised that if they support a woman while she has children, she will care for them as another child. Boys, growing up and seeing this have believed this is women's inevitable role, and resented women who try to break out of it, afraid they will lose their wife-mother. This in turn has led people to believe the intrinsic differences between the sexes are much greater than they are, and has pushed both sexes into stereotypical roles.

Originally posted by Aeons
It might stand to be noticed, that before women were hated for being in the classroom - the male teachers and the male dominated schools STILL had boys sit all day. And beat them if they didn't do so quietly.

It isn't as if the system was somehow "better" before. At least the newer system is adaptable and willing to adapt to get the best out of it.

who hates woman for being in class? and who said it was better back then? you seem on the defenceive. it should equal opertunity not "lets get the men back for our great grans oppresion"

i know you never said that but theres alot of anti man vibes coming from this thread and your post stood out to me

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Who argued that women being kept away from education was due to an inherent disposition of men?

To some extent it has been.

I know this does happen, I know others with similar stories. The only thing I would argue is that it isnt an inherent quality in men, but a learned or cultural one.

I know this is true because my own experience has been much different. I have been fortunate enough to have had a father, a grandfather, a foster father, a brother, and several older male colleagues when I worked as a plumber, who treated me as a person, not a "female." I was fortunate enough to have been born after the civil rights movement, and we werent allowed to watch television for most of my youth, nor were we raised in a religious household, and so I managed to grow up without being indoctrinated into the stereotype of "female." I was allowed to be who I was. Not that I didnt run up against my fair share of discrimination, but since I hadnt absorbed it from my earliest caregivers, it didnt ever really have the impact on me that it does on some.

But, the point is, I know it is not an inherent quality in men. I know too many men, personally, that are not that way. It is a learned trait. It has been pretty pervasive as a learned quality in different times and places, but men are absolutely capable of being fair, and of considering women and each other individually and not stereotyping. And each successive generation is less indoctrinated into this type of thinking than the last. It wont be gone in our lifetimes, but great progress is occurring, and if it were an inherent quality, you would not expect to see such change so quickly.

Originally posted by Kailassa

So I'm one of those women who've slipped under the radar. I've got the brains, I've achieved a lot more than I've listed here, but I'll never be recorded in any history book. Instead, I've worked caring for people, and making this world a better place. Just as billions of other women have done.

The root of what has kept women down is biology, our need for support while raising children has generally given men the upper hand in society. Men have realised that if they support a woman while she has children, she will care for them as another child. Boys, growing up and seeing this have believed this is women's inevitable role, and resented women who try to break out of it, afraid they will lose their wife-mother. This in turn has led people to believe the intrinsic differences between the sexes are much

that was along time ago. do you want to be in the history books for your achivements? women are treated equal now mabey even a little better hense femanism should die out. the only ones left are man haters as far as i can see. as for the biolagical side thats all down to mother nature and she is the only woman thats always right

personaly i like a strong willed woman but not one that will beat a dead horse then thay just look nuts

reply to post by Aceofclubs
edit button no longer shows up for me and i type faster than i can spell DOSE ANYONE KNOW HOW TO GET IT BACK male or female solutions will be accepted

reply to post by Aceofclubs


Once it's gone, it's gone

There's only a short window after posting when you can edit your own posts. If there's something that really needs editing (for instance, you made an ad hominem attack that you regret, or failed to source properly), a moderator can edit it for you.

EDIT: I just noticed that it was only 6 minutes between the post I assume you want to edit and your post asking how to edit it ... that's well within the window (I think you get 2 hours, but maybe it's only 1). Not sure what's going on in your case, then

[edit on 1/17/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
that was along time ago. do you want to be in the history books for your achivements? women are treated equal now mabey even a little better hense femanism should die out. the only ones left are man haters as far as i can see. as for the biolagical side thats all down to mother nature and she is the only woman thats always right

personaly i like a strong willed woman but not one that will beat a dead horse then thay just look nuts

Previous discussion in this thread had been about the lack of females for whom history had recorded achievements. I was responding to this discussion by illustrating from personal experience some of the factors which have caused this.

There are still women suffering from sexism, but there are also men suffering from sexism. I'm against anything that holds people back unnecessarily, and I believe in appreciating and respecting everyone.

By the way, for every man-hater I've met, and there certainly are some, I've met 100 woman haters.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But, the point is, I know it is not an inherent quality in men. I know too many men, personally, that are not that way. It is a learned trait. It has been pretty pervasive as a learned quality in different times and places, but men are absolutely capable of being fair, and of considering women and each other individually and not stereotyping. And each successive generation is less indoctrinated into this type of thinking than the last. It wont be gone in our lifetimes, but great progress is occurring, and if it were an inherent quality, you would not expect to see such change so quickly.

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent or essential attribute

The attitude of keeping women in their place is inherent to some men.

This doesn't mean it's an inevitable result of being male. I know plenty of men who are not in the least sexist. In Australia sexism seems to be dying out more slowly than in America and Europe. On the other hand, there are plenty of countries where it is far worse than here.

I remember when my youngest son came home from school, at 5 years old, telling us that boys were stronger than girls, and that his sister couldn't play with his Tonka Trucks because she was a girl. God knows who put that into his head. Of course after that I made him carry his own bag to school. (He had a debilitating medical condition, so hadn't had to up to then.) Mostly kids learn sexism from their own community, watching people in stereotyped roles and imprinting the behaviours of those they see around them.

I've always believed that the men who are dominating pigs towards women are like that because of a combination of innate tendency and opportunity. Our culture gives this opportunity to men more often than to women, but us women have the same tendencies, and some will behave just as badly if given the same opportunity.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent or essential attribute

The attitude of keeping women in their place is inherent to some men.

Inherent, as I use the word, is something essential. The essence of a thing, in philosophical terms, means something that cannot be extracted without changing the thing from itself to something else entirely.

www.yourdictionary.com...

existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn

For me, if sexism were an inherent quality of "men" (generalizes) there could be no "men" who did not have that attribute. Which is why I argued it could not be inherent, but learned.

However, if you are using the word more like "permanent" and throw in the qualifier, "some," I can see why you might argue that.

I personally, (and when I use the word "personally" I am offering opinion, not hard fact) feel that even the most sexist male or female CAN change, that the quality of sexism is NOT truly permanent and essential, but I do acknowledge that there are some who WILL not change, and for all practical purposes, that will be a permanent feature of their personality.

Ditto for racism, or any other -ism. The potential in my opinion for change is always present, but in some, it simply will never manifest.

Originally posted by Kailassa
In Australia sexism seems to be dying out more slowly than in America and Europe. On the other hand, there are plenty of countries where it is far worse than here.

Interesting. I wonder what accounts for the difference.

Originally posted by Kailassa
I've always believed that the men who are dominating pigs towards women are like that because of a combination of innate tendency and opportunity. Our culture gives this opportunity to men more often than to women, but us women have the same tendencies, and some will behave just as badly if given the same opportunity.

My own thoughts on the matter are that the "-isms" including sexism and racism, are not dissimilar to bullying, just carried out on a broader scale, and culturally accepted. So I totally agree that all humans have the potential to be sexist, racist, or some other form of bully. Women definitely participate in many of the -isms, and also just plain old individual bullying. Hopefully we can figure out the "why" we tend to slide so readily into the behavior, and when that happens, hopefully we will choose not to. I think we are doing that, slowly. I just think it will take a couple generations to work out all the kinks.

@Aeons

You can argue until you are blue in the face with your lies, deceit, argumentative lack of logic.

Are we going to direct this venom towards a specific target? or are you arguing with the severs?

@Illusionsaregrander

He knows the terms, and he even has some understanding about what those terms should be applied to, for instance;

Originally posted by Edrick
The argument with Gorman91 that I was referring to was a slippery slope.

He claimed that the women in the lives of great inventors were responsible for the inventors achievements.

"Why Stop There?" I asked myself, and started contributing the achievements of our inventors to cobblers, butchers, bakers, etc, that could have fed and clothed our inventors.

The argument *IS* moving the goalpost, and VERY slippery, because if you go down that road, No one is responsible for ANYTHING.

Do you get my point, or are you going to attempt another Ad Homenim?

While our friend does correctly identify a "slippery slope fallacy," with this reasoning, he is utterly unaware that he is the one committing it.

You still fail to grasp the context of my argument.

I would berate your for your lack of understanding, But I know that you are not responsible for your own actions, and Instead I should find all of the people in your life that could have possibly contributed to your awareness, knowledge, education, dietary needs, emotional validation, etc...

Because apparently, THEY are more responsible for your conduct than you are.

The slippery slope analogy WAS mine, but it is not a fallacy... it is the direct effect of the argumentative fallacy that you are using, known as:

Correlation does not imply Causation.

You were implying that the Correlation of women being in the life of leaders, thinkers, and inventors is a direct cause of these great deeds.

This, inevitably LEADS to a slippery slope, because we could attribute the NEARLY INFINITE variables that contributed to the existence of these people, their education, their nutrition, EVEN THE WEATHER that might have made them take a different course in life.

False Attribution is a Fallacy, and it was YOUR fallacy.

I would expect someone with your Background of University class education to be able to understand this point....

Arguing (in the formal sense) with someone who doesnt know the rules is much less fun than arguing with someone who knows the rules and is deliberately twisting them to persuade.

I wholeheartedly Agree...

You were attempting to state that women contribute to the "Advancement" of science, and of our greatest inventors by being NEAR them.

I could use the exact same argument technique to completely nullify the current contributions of women in the fields of chemistry and science... due to the men that taught them, the men that sired them, the men who grew the food to feed them, etc...

Correlation does not equal Causation.

Your argument is a slippery slope.

What about this is so difficult to understand?

And, if the rules of the game, being set up by men, favored men.....

What placed men in the position to be "Setting up the rules of the Game"?

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn

For me, if sexism were an inherent quality of "men" (generalizes) there could be no "men" who did not have that attribute. Which is why I argued it could not be inherent, but learned.

I agree that, by your definition, sexism is not inherent to males.
Mine came from Babylon, a handy little dictionary ap.

I personally, (and when I use the word "personally" I am offering opinion, not hard fact) feel that even the most sexist male or female CAN change, that the quality of sexism is NOT truly permanent and essential, but I do acknowledge that there are some who WILL not change, and for all practical purposes, that will be a permanent feature of their personality.

Ditto for racism, or any other -ism. The potential in my opinion for change is always present, but in some, it simply will never manifest.

They can at least change a little, and sometimes we have to just be appreciative of those small changes. For example, my father, who had always had great contempt for women, told me before he died that I was his one true son. I knew what he meant so took in in the spirit in which it was intended. It was a pity he never got over his contempt towards women, but at least he ended up seeing his daughter as a person.

The trouble is, if a person has a prejudice too deeply ingrained, they can't ever see that they are prejudiced, and everything they notice will somehow be incorporated into the prejudice or forgotten. I believe this goes back into the method our brain stores memories and information, in holographic patterns. Once the pattern is set, it will influence all further perceptions of anything that can fit into that pattern.

Originally posted by Kailassa
In Australia sexism seems to be dying out more slowly than in America and Europe. On the other hand, there are plenty of countries where it is far worse than here.

Interesting. I wonder what accounts for the difference.

The pub culture, mateship.
I've often heard men advising other men about the need to assert themselves and "slap her round a bit." And I've seen a few decent men listen and believe this stuff and become mongrels.

Hopefully we can figure out the "why" we tend to slide so readily into the behavior, and when that happens, hopefully we will choose not to. I think we are doing that, slowly. I just think it will take a couple generations to work out all the kinks.

Group dynamics has a lot to do with it. Through our evolution groups who can quickly unite against a common enemy have been the ones to survive, so humans have an intrinsic ability to unite together against a perceived threat. Leaders learn that they can unite a group by concocting such an enemy.

When a subjugated group is useful, so is general contempt for that group, as it enables further subjugation.

And of course there is always the natural fear of a group who is different.

The Y chromosome is that one oddball gene that gives us all our male characteristics. So our reproductive success depends heavily on that one chromosome. It's no secret that males compete harder than women for mates, resources and territory in just about every mammalian species. So there is a lot of stress driving the evolution of that chromosome. I don't see why this should be a surprise.

But I think the Y chromosome is more prone to defects because it's passed only from the father. It's sort of like inbreeding. Funny to think of men as all being inbreds, but it could explain a lot.