Brainwash - The Gender Equality Paradox - General

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39695045]But the perception that you have expressed is one that has in many ways been used to justify suppressing women, that is why I take issue with it [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] The dominant group always get the best deal because they set all the rules, while submissive types get fucked over, this is why it is very much necessary that women are given ample chances at dominant roles.[/QUOTE] I did not say a single thing about suppressing women. I also emphasized equal opportunity, including dominant roles. But just because someone is given equal chances at dominant roles, does not mean that they will be suitable, or even caring about those dominant roles. Just because I think that the female gender is not suitable for certain things, does not mean that I am suppressing or giving them unequal chances, once again returning to the profession example in the video. males are suited for certain things, and females are suited for certain things. I am also not suppressing women as a physical sex, or approaching this from a black and white perspective, considering the spectrum between both genders. And dominant types frequently get fucked over endlessly more than the submissive types, because they are frequently the ones metaphorically taking the bullets, and they would be COMPLETELY helpless without the submissive types there to support them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39694879]actually it's [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/URL] just because this dude is a psychologist does not make him right. and his study seems quite unreliable considering it makes assumptions that are pretty much impossible to show with a newborn child.[/QUOTE] We're back to that? What are you going to cite this time to support that claim? More sources that newborns can make out human face from environment? [QUOTE=carcarcargo;39695045]But the perception that you have expressed is one that has in many ways been used to justify suppressing women, that is why I take issue with it[/QUOTE] But it doesn't justify anything, it still was and is wrong to discriminate. Equal chances for everyone. I don't know you seem to be one of those people who thinks that people should do (should be controlled to do) things that they are suited for. And the idea that there are differences between genders collides with it, because that would mean there are professions that women on average aren't suited for therefore shouldn't be doing, and that would be sexist so it's not acceptable. Therefore you assume the opposite, saying that men and women are identical and thus expect (or even want to force) 50-50 split in every profession. The problem doesn't lie with genders being different, it lies in the idea that people should be doing what they are suited for based on some average. How about letting people do what they want? If women want to be nurses and men want to be engineers, let them. There will be women who want to be engineers and men who want to be nurses too, let them do that too. What's the problem with being different? It's base for discrimination? So you will try to defy reality and push the idea that everyone is identical to fight discrimination? Extreme mental gymnastics... The discrimination is the problem not the difference itself.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39694778]Yeah its called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts"]moving the goalpost[/URL], if you would like to know for future reference.[/QUOTE] I haven't really been paying attention because this thread is probably shitty but just because someone does something that counts as a logical fallacy, doesn't mean they've actually done anything fallacious. (Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, iunno) Calling someone out for it when they didn't do anything wrong (hold on to your butts this is gonna go deep) is actually a fallacy itself - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]the fallacy fallacy.[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39696888]I haven't really been paying attention because this thread is probably shitty but just because someone does something that counts as a logical fallacy, doesn't mean they've actually done anything fallacious. (Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, iunno) Calling someone out for it when they didn't do anything wrong (hold on to your butts this is gonna go deep) is actually a fallacy itself - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]the fallacy fallacy.[/url][/QUOTE] holy shit zeke i took the blue pill because i didn't want to know how far down the rabbit hole goes!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]and you still haven't fucking explained why a position requiring empathy(politics) would be so male dominated if women were naturally better at empathy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]empathy[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948]politics[/QUOTE] That's the funniest thing I've read all year. EDIT: Manipulation is the greatest skill of a politician. ...But an interesting point I should mention (not to forward either of our points, it's just interesting) is that in Norway most politicians are women. 5 out of the 7 parliamentary parties have female leaders. EDIT #2: Sorry, I forgot one resigned. 4 out of 7. But still.

I wish females got on better with the video games industry so that more chicks bought games If more chicks bought games not only would gaming be worth more but more people would try to appeal to their demo with [B]better characterization[/B] and [B]player choice[/B] as opposed to what really grabs the male demo (aka: 13 to 20) which is [B]Linear shit[/B] and [B]tits[/B] Not only would that directly benefit me but it would also increase my chances of getting laid and that's wonderful.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39696888]I haven't really been paying attention because this thread is probably shitty but just because someone does something that counts as a logical fallacy, doesn't mean they've actually done anything fallacious. (Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, iunno) Calling someone out for it when they didn't do anything wrong (hold on to your butts this is gonna go deep) is actually a fallacy itself - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]the fallacy fallacy.[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, good thing no one was trying to do so.

[QUOTE=Pubichair;39697843]I wish females got on better with the video games industry so that more chicks bought games If more chicks bought games not only would gaming be worth more but more people would try to appeal to their demo with [B]better characterization[/B] and [B]player choice[/B] as opposed to what really grabs the male demo (aka: 13 to 20) which is [B]Linear shit[/B] and [B]tits[/B] Not only would that directly benefit me but it would also increase my chances of getting laid and that's wonderful.[/QUOTE] Actually we probably wouldn't get better characterisation and player choice since that's not something that directly appeals to a female demo. If you look at the number of generally most popular SP titles in the female demo you'll notice that they tend to be very linear in story progression. And the characterisation isn't much better, merely differently focused.

[QUOTE=mac338;39697631]That's the funniest thing I've read all year. EDIT: Manipulation is the greatest skill of a politician. [/quote] empathy is very important for politics. like i said, the ability to read other people and their emotions is invaluable to furthering your own goals. being able to relate to other people makes you more effective at manipulating them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39701188]empathy is very important for politics. like i said, the ability to read other people and their emotions is invaluable to furthering your own goals. being able to relate to other people makes you more effective at manipulating them.[/QUOTE] Sorry but manipulating people requires lack of empathy otherwise you'd feel bad about what you're doing. Look at all the telemarketers, peddlers and scammers for example. They manipulate you into buying shit you don't need, they are good at it. If they had empathy, they wouldn't be manipulating you into buying things you don't need. That's why I quit being a telemarketer. I had all the tools at my disposal to manipulate people, but I felt bad about it so I quit.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39701323]Sorry but manipulating people requires lack of empathy otherwise you'd feel bad about what you're doing. Look at all the telemarketers, peddlers and scammers for example. They manipulate you into buying shit you don't need, they are good at it. If they had empathy, they wouldn't be manipulating you into buying things you don't need. That's why I quit being a telemarketer. I had all the tools at my disposal to manipulate people, but I felt bad about it so I quit.[/QUOTE] sorry but you cannot manipulate people if you do not understand what they want. most people who manipulate(like salesmen or telemarketers) delude themselves into believing that what they are peddling will improve their mark's life in some way(and sometimes it will). as long as you can trick yourself into thinking you are doing the right thing, you can keep doing pretty manipulative shit. a politician requires empathy because they HAVE to relate to people to get what they want.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39701366]sorry but you cannot manipulate people if you do not understand what they want. most people who manipulate(like salesmen or telemarketers) delude themselves into believing that what they are peddling will improve their mark's life in some way(and sometimes it will). as long as you can trick yourself into thinking you are doing the right thing, you can keep doing pretty manipulative shit. a politician requires empathy because they HAVE to relate to people to get what they want.[/QUOTE] Nothing you said is true basically. The person you are calling doesn't need anything that you can offer. But you can manipulate that person into believing that he/she does. That's what manipulation is. If someone actually needs and buys something he needs from you, there is no manipulation.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39702075]Nothing you said is true basically. The person you are calling doesn't need anything that you can offer. But you can manipulate that person into believing that he/she does. That's what manipulation is. If someone actually needs and buys something he needs from you, there is no manipulation.[/QUOTE] ok so i guess we can come to this conclusion: silly sil has no reading comprehension or critical reading skills at all. did you actually even read my post? seriously? do you skim them then write an off-topic reply?

Ironic. [quote]sorry but you cannot manipulate people if you do not understand what they want[/quote] [quote]The person you are calling doesn't need (want) anything that you can offer. But you can manipulate that person into believing that he/she does. That's what manipulation is. [/quote] It's not manipulation if you sell something that people need. It's manipulation only if you MANIPULATE people into believing they need (want) something that they actually don't.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39702119]Ironic. It's not manipulation if you sell something that people need. It's manipulation only if you MANIPULATE people into believing they need (want) something that they actually don't.[/QUOTE] yea and in order to do that you have to figure out what they want. if a person wants better health you dress up the product as a "solution" to their health problems. if a person wants entertainment you dress up the product as being fun. you have to have empathy to see what the person wants so you can sell it to them. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] i don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39692948] and you still haven't fucking explained why a position requiring empathy(politics) would be so male dominated if [B]women were naturally better at empathy.[/B][/QUOTE] wait what

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39702259]yea and in order to do that you have to figure out what they want. if a person wants better health you dress up the product as a "solution" to their health problems. if a person wants entertainment you dress up the product as being fun. you have to have empathy to see what the person wants so you can sell it to them. [/QUOTE] That's not empathy. If you were driven by empathy you'd be trying to help that person and try to get them something they [B]actually [/B]need not [B]manipulate [/B]them into buying things they don't want/need. Manipulation has nothing to do with empathy, on the contrary. It's immoral and requires lack of empathy. You're tricking people. I don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39702393]That's not empathy. If you were driven by empathy you'd be trying to help that person and try to get them something they [B]actually [/B]need not [B]manipulate [/B]them into buying things they don't want/need. Manipulation has nothing to do with empathy, on the contrary. It's immoral and requires lack of empathy. You're tricking people. I don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp.[/QUOTE] well ANYWAYS it still doesn't make sense that politics are male-dominated according to baron-cohen.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;39702306]wait what[/QUOTE] p sure it's been proven that women have a better sense of empathy correct me if im wrong [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39702666]well ANYWAYS it still doesn't make sense that politics are male-dominated according to baron-cohen.[/QUOTE] because the number one job for women is waitressing and secretarial work both require an extreme sense of empathy

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39702666]well ANYWAYS it still doesn't make sense that politics are male-dominated according to baron-cohen.[/QUOTE] Because men are more attracted to a position of authority and leadership and women often are more attracted to supportive roles as a result of evolution. In a position of authority you control the people more than you communicate with them, and in a supportive role you communicate with them more than you control them.

[QUOTE=mac338;39702777]Because men are more attracted to a position of authority and leadership and women often are more attracted to supportive roles as a result of evolution.[/QUOTE] o god is it time for more biotruths now? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] is there any evidence to support this wild hypothesis mac

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39702794]o god is it time for more biotruths now? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] is there any evidence to support this wild hypothesis mac[/QUOTE] the fact that occupations of authority is male dominant and supportive occupations, like the couple i posted before are female dominant??

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39702830]the fact that occupations of authority is male dominant and supportive occupations, like the couple i posted before are female dominant??[/QUOTE] "why aren't there many women in positions of authority? because they naturally don't want to be in positions of authority. how do you know they naturally don't want to be in positions of authority? because not a lot of women are in positions of authority!" do you get how circular and flawed this reasoning is? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] there are other explanations for why women don't have high representation in politics besides "their woman brain doesn't let them." in fact, this explanation falls incredibly short when you look at trends over the last few decades.

it's a comment on general behaviour im not a science

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39702794]o god is it time for more biotruths now? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] is there any evidence to support this wild hypothesis mac[/QUOTE] Watch the video, it is one of the many things that demonstrates it, even when discrimination is absent. I also find it ironic that you are calling this a wild hypothesis, while you are the one presenting a wild hypothesis of it not being this way. and I would like to repeat that I am not talking about "bio-truths" I am talking about gender truths, regardless of which physical sex or physical pre-disposition the person possesses. And speaking of bio-truths, if we were to talk about physical bodies, it is quite apparent that stronger organisms are more suitable for leading roles, while gentler organisms are more suitable for supporting roles. And while physical sex is independent from the actual gender, they are frequently reasonably synchronized, but not always. If you are trying to blur the line between the beautiful diversity of genders, you are destroying one of the core parts of being human, and turning it into something else entirely. There is nothing wrong with females being more suited for some things, and males being better suited for other things. The problem comes in with discrimination, which I have repeatedly stated to strongly oppose. Keep in mind that supportive roles are just as important as leading roles. I fully support the notion of eradicating discrimination, but I do not support the notion of somehow blurring the genders into something asexual, because it is simply not the case. There are definitely people out there who are 50/50 male and female, but there are also people out there who are 90 male, and 90 female. And I am not insulting the cognitive abilities of females, or their abilities in general, I am discussing their preferences as a gender.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;39702975]Watch the video, it is one of the many things that demonstrates it, even when discrimination is absent. I also find it ironic that you are calling this a wild hypothesis, while you are the one presenting a wild hypothesis of it not being this way. and I would like to repeat that I am not talking about "bio-truths" I am talking about gender truths, regardless of which physical sex or physical pre-disposition the person possesses. And speaking of bio-truths, if we were to talk about physical bodies, it is quite apparent that stronger organisms are more suitable for leading roles, while gentler organisms are more suitable for supporting roles. And while physical sex is independent from the actual gender, they are frequently reasonably synchronized, but not always. If you are trying to blur the line between the beautiful diversity of genders, you are destroying one of the core parts of being human, and turning it into something else entirely. There is nothing wrong with females being more suited for some things, and males being better suited for other things. The problem comes in with discrimination, which I have repeatedly stated to strongly oppose. Keep in mind that supportive roles are just as important as leading roles. I fully support the notion of eradicating discrimination, but I do not support the notion of somehow blurring the genders into something asexual, because it is simply not the case. There are definitely people out there who are 50/50 male and female, but there are also people out there who are 90 male, and 90 female. And I am not insulting the cognitive abilities of females, or their abilities in general, I am discussing their preferences as a gender.[/QUOTE] the thing is that you are looking at differences that are present in a patriarchic society. environment and society shape a person's behavior greatly. so even if you can demonstrate that women are submissive today, it does not mean they are innately submissive; our culture could shape women to be that way. this is why analyzing gender differences is so god damn hard and why i don't like people spouting out biotruths and evolutionary psych regarding gender equality. seriously, the methodology you use to reach women being "supportive" can also be used to categorize blacks as stupid and violent. you ignore socioeconomic factors and claim that we just evolved this way. it does no justice to science or society. lastly, i'm not trying to say that women and men are the same, there are obvious physiological differences, and some possible psychological differences. however, as far as general behavior is concerned, there is very little evidence to support the idea that women are supportive and men are meant to lead naturally.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39703169]the thing is that you are looking at differences that are present in a patriarchic society. environment and society shape a person's behavior greatly. so even if you can demonstrate that women are submissive today, it does not mean they are innately submissive; our culture could shape women to be that way. this is why analyzing gender differences is so god damn hard and why i don't like people spouting out biotruths and evolutionary psych regarding gender equality. seriously, the methodology you use to reach women being "supportive" can also be used to categorize blacks as stupid and violent. you ignore socioeconomic factors and claim that we just evolved this way. it does no justice to science or society. lastly, i'm not trying to say that women and men are the same, there are obvious physiological differences, and some possible psychological differences. however, as far as general behavior is concerned, there is very little evidence to support the idea that women are supportive and men are meant to lead naturally.[/QUOTE] We showed you that the differences exist since day 1 (which you ignore by saying that the newborns are blind and then linking sources that prove you wrong). There are 2 facts that you can't refute. 1. Testosterone controls how aggressive/empathetic a person is. 2. Males produce more testosterone on average. That itself proves biological difference. Now we're not saying that the difference between genders comes in 100% from biology. We're just saying it's a factor that you can't ignore. Social influence can either strengthen or weaken biological predispositions, that doesn't prove that those predispositions don't exist. Lastly how the testosterone shapes our behavior and the fact that males produces more, by itself proves that men will (on average) favor leading/aggressive/competitive roles and women will favor supportive/compassionate roles. Key word: "on average". There will be exceptions and they should be welcomed not discriminated.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39703373]We showed you that the differences exist since day 1 (which you ignore by saying that the newborns are blind and then linking sources that prove you wrong). There are 2 facts that you can't refute. 1. Testosterone controls how aggressive/empathetic a person is. 2. Males produce more testosterone on average. That itself proves biological difference.[/quote] hey silly sil, science called and asked that you stop putting words in its mouth. "Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva. Most studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. Nearly all studies of juvenile delinquency and testosterone are not significant. Most studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression_and_criminality[/url] [quote]Now we're not saying that the difference between genders comes in 100% from biology. We're just saying it's a factor that you can't ignore. Social influence can either strengthen or weaken biological predispositions, that doesn't prove that those predispositions don't exist. [/quote] it also makes it incredibly complex to actually study and come to a conclusion about. [quote]Lastly how the testosterone shapes our behavior and the fact that males produces more, by itself proves that men will (on average) favor leading/aggressive/competitive roles and women will favor supportive/compassionate roles. Key word: "on average". There will be exceptions and they should be welcomed not discriminated.[/QUOTE] no it doesn't actually prove that men will fall into leading roles at all. and even if they do, the burden is still on you to show that the current inequality can be shown through biological reasons versus plain discrimination and patriarchy.

well isn't the original argument that females are more empathetic than males? [url=http://roderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/2341/8.Mestre_Sp%3Cwbr%3Eanish%20Journal%20of%20Psychology_12(1)_2009.pdf?sequence=1]Give this a read, page 81 has the conclusion[/url]

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39703667]well isn't the original argument that females are more empathetic than males? [url=http://roderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/2341/8.Mestre_Sp%3Cwbr%3Eanish%20Journal%20of%20Psychology_12(1)_2009.pdf?sequence=1]Give this a read, page 81 has the conclusion[/url][/QUOTE] that wasn't the original argument, i was challenging baron-cohen's assertion that women are manipulative, bitchy, and passive aggressive by pointing out they generally have the least representation in a field that is all about manipulation and passive aggression.