Are there dangerous ideas?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Are there dangerous ideas?

This topic contains 111 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 3 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33353

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Your view, as with so much of “woke” feminism, implies that un-woke women are just not as smart as woke women, otherwise they’d be woke, right? I mean, apparently men and woke women “get it” more than un-woke women do. Because…?

    You’re imputing a view to me that I don’t hold.  I happen to think that a lot of woke people are daft as a brush.  The real desirable quality is to be “conscious”, which is different.  I meant that this person is a very feminist feminist.

    Also, as I said before, I don’t deny that males and females are built a little differently.  It’s not me you need to be arguing with on this point.

    My position is that society oppresses women.

    #33354

    Unseen
    Participant

    Simon, you continue to talk about “society” as if it’s a person, because if it were inanimate or unthinking it couldn’t oppress. We don’t attribute oppression to inanimate or unthinking objects. I see oppression as an intentional act like a slave owner oppressing his slaves. Slaves weren’t oppressed by slavery or the slave system, but by the intentional agents involved, those who captured and kidnapped the slaves and everyone in between there and the slavemasters out in the cotton and tobacco fields. However, if society isn’t a person how can it form intent? Or is it a person in some abstruse philosophical sense?

    To me the proposition that “society oppresses women” is simply nonsensical. It’s like attributing agency to a knickknack.

    #33356

    Unseen
    Participant

    Since I’ve established, I hope, that “society” isn’t a thinking being with agency and intent what is it then? And why can’t we accept it as simply natural? And if it is natural, why challenge or oppose it? And if society is unnatural, how can that be?

    #33357

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, society is simply a community of humans living within a culture. If we accept society as natural then we probably accept the consequences of that designation. Why fuck with natural? But we know that cultures cause some pretty fucked up circumstances. Who wants to live in Puritan Salem, Nazi Germany or one of today’s theocracies?

    I think it gets back to what i have mentioned-neuroplasticity. I agree there are definite innate tendencies and to some extent anatomy is destiny. Women and men are not the same. But roles are flexible because our forbears were successful as a result of flexibility.

    It is also the case that there are competing tendencies. On the one hand there is the individual’s search for advantage-pursuing self interest. On the other hand there is the tribal identification that we see play out in horrifying ways in contemporary society.

    Nature and nurture are inextricably linked and our prefrontal cortex has done the waltz but it can be trained to do the charlseton. There is a tension between gender roles created by biology and gender roles demanded or encouraged by cultures. Cultures are the macrocosm of the individual and as such are capable of great change. When they do the gender roles change wit em.

    #33358

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    if society isn’t a person how can it form intent? Or is it a person in some abstruse philosophical sense?

    It’s not a living thing, but is made up of living things – people, who have agency and intent and instincts and psychology.

    Women are oppressed in almost every society.  One theory of social norms says that:

    • every large group has a culture.
    • social norms are part of that culture.
    • social norms are a group-wide system of social control.
    • social norms are internalised by everyone in the group, and enforced by everyone in the group upon everyone in the group, including upon themselves.

    In other words, people govern themselves and each other on behalf of the group, following its culture and norms.

    That’s how society governs and oppresses people – through social norms.

    #33359

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    why can’t we accept it as simply natural? And if it is natural, why challenge or oppose it? And if society is unnatural, how can that be?

    Everything to do with humans can be considered natural, as in created by humans.  I think you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy – that anything “natural” is somehow “good” or even “acceptable” because it’s natural.

    “Good” means that something upholds moral or ethical norms.  Dog shit is natural, but we don’t accept it being on the bottom of our shoes.

    #33361

    Unseen
    Participant

    Simon, the kind of “natural” I’m talking about is what results when free folks are left to the inclinations they are comfortable with. They should not have to deal with “woke” self-appointed experts or saviors telling them that everything they know is wrong. That seems to be one of feminism’s specialties: telling women they are wrong not to want to be a CEO or Army Ranger when what they really want to do is raise children, become a psychologist, or do interior decorating. Men are also guilt-tripped for preferring to follow typical male pursuits.

    Stop it. Leave us alone. ‘We don’t need the constant guilt-inducing advice or accusations of the “woke.”

     

    #33362

    Davis
    Participant

    Unseen don’t be fucking ridiculous. Nobody is left alone to their natural inclinations. Every day we face countless pressures to conform to cultural norms, gender roles from our parents (who faces pressures from their parents and so on and so on and so on), not to mention at work, among friends, in public, at functions and so on. Many of these pressures come from centuries ago during a time when gender roles were harsh, cruel and rigid. The fact that those have changed and that we now have a completely new set of rules (and I am sure you completely approve of many of those and yet resist some others) tells us that we can easily challenge these, and they are being challenged by people, in terms of gender, by women who refuse to be treated differently and are sick to fucking death of disrespect, fewer opportunities, inability to walk down the street at night alone, sexual harassment, mansplaining and so on (ad infinitum). You are simply resisting these things because you’ve reached the limit of what you are comfortable with and find the issues that women are still fighting for challenging to your own sensibilities and then just dismiss them as “woke” or some “annoying vocal minority”. And you do so through the preposterous argument of what is “natural” whatever the fuck that means in the 21st century. If you don’t like an approach to absolute equality and the lowering of barriers then just say so. No one is taking your “natural” stick seriously. What is natural is what humans were like 100,000 years ago.

    #33363

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen don’t be fucking ridiculous. Nobody is left alone to their natural inclinations. Every day we face countless pressures to conform to cultural norms, gender roles from our parents (who faces pressures from their parents and so on and so on and so on), not to mention at work, among friends, in public, at functions and so on.

    How we respond to those pressures, Davis, is largely due to our inherent inclinations, and gender roles are largely baked in. Just look around the natural world. From shrews to chimps, our nearest evolutionary ancestors, males and females have different roles having nothing to do with social pressures. If you think humans didn’t also inherent ways of thinking and behaving baked into our DNA, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Many of these pressures come from centuries ago during a time when gender roles were harsh, cruel and rigid. The fact that those have changed and that we now have a completely new set of rules (and I am sure you completely approve of many of those and yet resist some others) tells us that we can easily challenge these, and they are being challenged by people, in terms of gender, by women who refuse to be treated differently and are sick to fucking death of disrespect, fewer opportunities, inability to walk down the street at night alone, sexual harassment, mansplaining and so on (ad infinitum).

    You’re the one being disrespectful here by making or implying the claim that somehow I view disrespect, fewer opportunities, lack of night safety, sexual harassment, mansplaining, etc., as some sort of necessary consequence of my view. You’re basically guilty of poisoning the well.  Wouldn’t it be better to actually address my claim. You haven’t offered any sort of verifiable claim on your behalf.

    Why is it so hard to accept that men and women have different psychologies due to physical differences, including the differences in our brains and blood chemistry (hormones)? Women have all the opportunities men have but bring, generally, a different set of talents (and that is a generalization that says something about women as a class but means nothing in terms of an individual).

    No woman has written a great large-scale musical work and yet they are among the most accomplished performers. At the same time, while there are no great female painters, there seems to be no widespread systematic discrimination against female writers.

    I’m not the one with a burden of proof here. I have offered evidence that men and women are fundamentally different, which you counter with mere claims. You’ve got to do better than that.

    If there are dangerous ideas, one kind is social engineering freed of a factual basis.

    When people claim that the only difference between men and women that isn’t social, they need to provide us with proof. Until then, it’s just a dogma.

    The rest of your “argument” is mostly ad hominem offering no evidence.

    #33364

    jakelafort
    Participant

    IT IS NATURAL. Something a sexual predator might say to a vulnerable sort. Something that does not justify eating certain mushrooms and plants that are lethal.

    Something that is used to justify exploitation of the most vile and disheartening. Something like manifest destiny.

    Nature loses its significance when it is no longer in nature. Add culture and nature is a factor without being a lonely engine. Engine one. Engine two. Engine of neuroplasticity through and through…

    #33365

    Unseen
    Participant

    IT IS NATURAL. Something a sexual predator might say to a vulnerable sort. Something that does not justify eating certain mushrooms and plants that are lethal. Something that is used to justify exploitation of the most vile and disheartening. Something like manifest destiny. Nature loses its significance when it is no longer in nature. Add culture and nature is a factor without being a lonely engine. Engine one. Engine two. Engine of neuroplasticity through and through…

    More fact-free dogma. Men and women are different in impactful ways, but we are equal when those differences and impacts are viewed as special advantages each has. To wit…

    Women’s Advantages in Social Cognition

    (QUOTE) Early studies suggested there were no sex differences in theory of mind, but the tasks used in these studies were too easy. Studies using more complex tasks suggest girls and women often have an advantage. For instance, Bosacki (2000; Bosacki & Astington, 1999) found that 3 out of 4 12-year-old girls were more skilled than the average same-age boy at making inferences about the thoughts, feelings, and social perspective of their peers. The extent of these differences and their development, however, remains to be fully determined.

    From an evolutionary perspective, one question concerns why girls and women have advantages in these particular areas. If we look at primates more broadly, we find that females often show greater sensitivity to subtle social cues and show more indictors of empathy (e.g., mimicking the facial displays of others) than do males, likely related to females’ greater engagement with offspring and in many species their formation of same-sex kin-based networks to provide social support and protection. In addition, and in comparison to boys and men, the folk psychological abilities discussed here are especially critical for the formation and maintenance of the emotionally-close friendships that are an important source of social support for girls and women.

    These abilities also provide an advantage in the social maneuvering (e.g., spreading false rumors about competitors and doing so in ways that are plausibly denial) that is more central to the ways in which girls and women relative to boys and men compete with one another.  (END)

    Men’s Advantages in Spatial Cognition & Mechanical Reasoning

    (QUOTE) Boys and men generate cognitive bird’s-eye-view maps of the habitats in which they are traveling more quickly than do girls and women and have advantages in a number of related areas (e.g., understanding maps). The magnitude of these sex differences varies with age, task complexity, and experience in exploring the environment, with the largest differences after adolescence and after some spatial experiences.

    Some of the spatial abilities in which boys and men have an advantage appear to contribute to the ability to visualize how objects might be used as tools and are likely important in the construction of tools. More abstractly, the latter is the basis for mechanical reasoning.  Boys and men report more interest in mechanical objects and how they work, and there are large sex differences on complex mechanical reasoning tasks in adolescence and adulthood. Here, about 4 out 5 boys and men score higher on complex mechanical reasoning tasks than do same-age girls and women, although the sex difference is small for less complex tasks.

    Across this post and the last one, we see that girls and women have advantages in understanding and navigating the nuances of interpersonal relationships, whereas boys and men have advantages in understanding, manipulating, and understanding the physical world. (END)

     

     

    #33366

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @unseen, I don’t understand your position.  Are you saying

    • males and females are somehow not of equal worth as people?
    • women don’t deserve equal rights?
    • oppression of women is OK?

    What is your fundamental position on women’s rights?

    I feel like you’ve been distorting your reasoning, and tying yourself up in knots, trying to prove some a priori opinion, instead of free enquiry.

    #33367

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i don’t think anything i said is dogma. The part you quoted is simply an argument against the notion that natural is equated with don’t change it cuz it is natural.

    I absolutely agree with you as i have indicated that there are fundamental differences between males and females. Those differences have a biological/evolutionary provenance. I also think it is instructive that transgenders can transcend the cultural pressures to be true to themselves.

    Additionally i argue that gender roles are highly flexible and we ought to seek equality and self actualization for all.

    #33368

    Unseen
    Participant

    This reminds me of the recent talk given on a campus where the moment a speaker asserted that men and women really are different in fundamental ways, a number of the enwokened put their fingers in their ears and hummed to themselves (figurativel) while they actually did leave the lecture.

    I have nowhere said and you can’t find me saying that males and females are of unequal worth as people, that women don’t deseve equal rights, or that the oppression of women is OK.

    I believe women deserve and should have equal rights with men, and have not said anywhere that there is a right men have that women shouldn’t have. Where things go off the rails is in speculating that there’s something necessarily wrong if men and women exercise their rights in different ways.

    As for your last sentence, it’s speculation and/or opinion just like most of the fact-free gobbledegook offered in opposition.

    Women and men have different brains. We’re wired differently. This gives us different values, for one thing. And before you go off on the endless quest for exceptions, my claim is in general, it doesn’t necessarily apply to this individual or that. For example, history shows us that men are more successful at math, yet there are at least two major mathematicians who come to mind who are female. If male domination in the math field continues today, it doesn’t seem to be based on a prejudice against women. Today, we have peer-reviewed journals and you can’t just toss a good theorem or solution aside because a female wrote or discovered it. Any editor who did that would risk being scooped by another journal.

    The truth seems to be that (a) math isn’t as interesting to women and (b) that female brains are simply wired differently and in a fashion that gives them advantages over males in other fields. If you deny that difference in wiring, you are simply anatomically uninformed.

    Wokedness in the gender area appears to be much more about politics than data. The enwokened would clearly rather accuse the opposition of backwardness and ulterior motives than offer conclusive data demonstrating that men and women are pretty much the same except for social programming. And that’s because the facts don’t support their position.

    If the argument is that if we tried real hard we could create a simulation of a society where men and women are about the same, I’d ask where’s the general benefit of that? Women and men (maybe not the enwokened) are generally happy with their choices. Don’t tell the female veterinarian that she should be a brain surgeon or the elementary school teacher that she should be an electrical engineer. People generally are where they are due to freely-made choices they feel benefit them better than the alternatives. I could have gone into law or accountancy, I suppose, but I chose philosophy knowing going in that I could make more money elsewhere. I don’t regret that choice, and the aforementioned veterinarian and teacher are happy with their choices, too.

    Anyway, if you can’t do better than implying I somehow harbor a conscious or unconscious hatred of women or believe in male superiority, you’ve lost the argument. Women are superior to men in a number of ways, but solving equations or doing what’s needed to become CEO of a Fortune 50 company are not high on the list, whereas caring and nurturing people and/or animals, creating crafts, starting small businesses, and homemaking are.

    What the woke offer is a politically-biased social experiment with more dogma than data behind it.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by  Unseen.
    #33370

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen although i mostly agree with you i don’t think it is fair to compare achievements in art and science unless it is the last few decades. Opps for women were so limited. I also think there may not be as many power hungry would-be CEO’s or heads of state but there are some. Opps again limited do to discrimination.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.