Are women people? by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is getting ridiculous, and will be the last time I engage you. I NEVER said women were superior to men, nor do I think it for a minute. I don't know where you got that. I believe there are DIFFERENCES...you seem to be postulating there are absolutely none.

I doubt you can show me any "source" or "population", especially in America, where men are raped as often, or even CLOSE to as often, as women are.

Circumcision of male babies? You actually compare circumcision to the horrors perpetrated on women? Wow.

I don't feel the slightest bit defensive. I've noted quite clearly that there are exceptions, and unfairness on the part of women, that things are closer to equality than they used to be, as well as that things (hopefully) will continue to change. I don't see you giving an inch on any point whatsoever, to the (in my opinion) extreme of claiming that somehow men are raped to the same degree as women and circumcision is the same as genital manipulation of women. I would say rather that your position is pretty extreme, while mine is more modified.

I said quite clearly that I know little of a theory called "evolutionary psychology"...I don't even know if it pertains to what I've been talking about. I looked it up on Wikipedia, the quickest way I know to find something out, and quoted what I read there. That "theory" should be left out of the discussion in my opinion, since you brought it in and claimed it's what I'm talking about. I can't debate something I know nothing about, much less even know if it pertains to my points.

If by my "emotions" you mean incredulity, I can't take it out. I don't feel emotional about this issue whatsoever, but yes, I'm certainly incredulous regarding some of the things you've posted. As to emotional, I would suggest you contrast your last post with mine to judge who is more "emotional", just given the wording: "goddamn", "act like", "nonsense", "take your emotions out of this", "extremely defensive" (extremely?), "believe this tripe". Sounds pretty emotional to me. I HAVE no "cause", I'm expressing my opinions, nothing more. As are you, by the way; if you think it's some kind of "cause", I don't understand why it should be.

Ergo, please feel free to judge me however you will, this isn't something we can debate given you are apparently unwilling or unable to see any flaws whatsoever in your position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:21 AM

Quote:
If you don't believe aggression and sexuality are genetic holdovers from previous evolution, then you'll have to prove why, IN THE MAJORITY, men are more aggressive and sexual than women. It's a very simple matter to just look around you in the world to see that both are true. Sporting events, barrom brawls, fistfights, boxing (actually any form of one-on-one aggressive sport), dog fighting, and so many other things illustrate it.

That's your proof? You don't think women do any of those things? That they don't participate or perpetuate any of it?

You really want me to dig up proof? It would only take one kick-boxing club, or Olympic games women boxing team webpage to refute your post.

I mean, for cryin' out loud, if you really wanted to argue with me, you could have said that males have nine to fifteen times the incarceration rate than females do depending on the nation, or that male criminal defendants are three times more common than female criminal defendants... Even though I think that's a product of the juries and the justice system of those nations.

Hell, even Pizmo's quote from wikipedia on the gender and crime page said "Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive".

EDIT: Just noticed this.

Quote:
By the way, of COURSE women competing with men get more aggressive. That's the only way to effectively compete; again, the playing field is determined by the males; females follow suit to fight their way to equality.

So women don't get aggressive in competition with other women, or children? And, if some women can out-compete men, doesn't that mean that those particular women were more aggressive than the men to begin with?

Quote:
What royalty did doesn't count; they had virtually unlimited power and weren't for the most part considered "women".

That's cherrypicking.

Quote:
That's not true these days, so it's questionable history where the vast majority of women are concerned. And how much more difficult was it in many cases FOR a woman to rule? Remember the battles just the British queens had to fight to be accepted as authority? Check history.

So when Indira Ghandi kills off a bunch of Pakistani, it's not because she hates Pakistanis or because of religious tensions between Hindu and Muslim, but because she has to prove herself to men.

...How is this interpretation of the world empowering to women, again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:23 AM

Men rule America and everywhere else.
Why? Is it their physical strength?
No.
It's because of teamwork, cooperation.

Men instinctively (testosterone) and egomaniacally compete with each other.
Yet they are also able to bond, form teams. "Hey Guys! Hunting party! Let's go kill dinner."

Women egomaniacally and "in survival" compete with each other.
Women also had their groups, a sewing circle. Team effort not required.
Women do bond, yes. They even have clubs. When it comes to bonding for a shared political
purpose, women just don't show up and cooperate as well as men do. It is a serious weakness
in the ranks -- scattered ranks.

Men have been teaming up forever. That's why they rule.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mmm, Oonj, I hear what you're saying. But I was talking about the PRESENT, actually. It still happens in some small towns...and yes, it's kept from PUBLIC view, you're right in that. Nonetheless it's male policement who know about it and do nothing.

And one might ask; why, if every knew, was nothing done about it back in the 50s?

Of course it's different from the 50s, I grew up then and remember all too clearly. But for me that doesn't mean we've reached "equality". I'm grateful as hell that we've gotten this far, because back in the 50s I'd have been pressured to marry early and have kids, and not have a working life. Believe me, I'm VERY grateful. But one only has to look at how much money people still put into big weddings (generally at the behest of the woman) and for how many young women that remains their lifetime goal, as well as all the jokes and comments about "biological clock" and "time of the month" which still exist to know we're not there yet. JMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh for heaven's sake. Enough already...I NEVER said women didn't participate in the things you listed...my point was that by far they are MALE activities. That's where you keep going off the deep end...NOWHERE have I said that ANYTHING is exclusively male or female. You keep going there. My point has been that there is MORE rape by males, MORE males are attracted to aggressive sports, etc. You know, proportions? As in "not black or white"?

I swear, I will NOT be dragged back into this, it's just that your portrayal of me as saying "NO women", etc., is something I can't let stand. So yes, on that point I'm defending myself; let's be clear. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, am I suggeting "ONLY men..." or "ONLY women"... Okay?

As an aside, I don't believe one can make a flat statement and back it up by quoting "Some researchers" --again, proportion comes into it. Even "most researchers" would leave room for debate...but "some"? That indicates far less than 50%.

So please continue your ranting, you're obviously more invested in this than I am. Just, respectfully, please don't put words in my mouth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Imagine if the bastards behind this had to cope with hordes of angry women questioning their judgement, their sanity, their moral right to do any of it, loudly - EVERY WHERE THEY GO, nowhere to hide, nowhere to flee, hounded, verbally pounded, on and on nonstop the way they've done to women.

Ah, but Frem, we're not there yet. In THAT respect I see it as social conditioning, definitely not genetics. Until enough women (hopefully) get beyond social conditioning, you will never get a large enough concentration of them to do what you suggest. First, you have to get enough women to BELIEVE it needs changing, then you have to get enough women willing to face down "the way things are". Some have, via lawsuits, etc., but they're still too much in the minority, society is still trying to indoctrinate women, and additionally, there are still too many men in power for women to pull it off.

I would say that also relates to Oonj's

Quote:
When it comes to bonding for a shared political purpose, women just don't show up and cooperate as well as men do. It is a serious weakness in the ranks -- scattered ranks.

There you go. But I don't think that's genetic, which you're (seem to be?) indicating. Women join ranks, but in my experience it's more often WITH men and other women than women alone. At least that's true in every organization or cause I've been part of...I've never engaged in "women's lib" stuff, so I don't know, but those I know who have, also have males in their group. I don't think something pushed by women alone would ever be as effective as if both sexes were represented...just as there were whites joining up with African Americans in the civil rights era.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:36 AM

Quote:
I NEVER said women were superior to men, nor do I think it for a minute.

...Eh, okay. I actually looked back through this page, and I don't see you agreeing with Pizmo anywhere on that. So, okay. I thought that you had.

Quote:
I believe there are DIFFERENCES...you seem to be postulating there are absolutely none.

There's approximately 4% genetic variability differences that can attributed to gender. Obviously, if gender differences were any more extreme than this, it would make fetal development very complicated.

Quote:

Circumcision of male babies? You actually compare circumcision to the horrors perpetrated on women? Wow.

Sure. One is child abuse, bordering on sexual assault on a minor. The other is sexual assault on a female. Both are bad.

Quote:
I don't see you giving an inch on any point whatsoever, to the (in my opinion) extreme of claiming that somehow men are raped to the same degree as women and circumcision is the same as genital manipulation of women.

Uh, no. Again, this isn't what I've said or argued. Pizmo said that men are the only ones who do this. They aren't.

Quote:
I said quite clearly that I know little of a theory called "evolutionary psychology"...I don't even know if it pertains to what I've been talking about. I looked it up on Wikipedia, the quickest way I know to find something out, and quoted what I read there. That "theory" should be left out of the discussion in my opinion, since you brought it in and claimed it's what I'm talking about. I can't debate something I know nothing about, much less even know if it pertains to my points.

*deep breath*

Okay. The problem here is that you DO know evolutionary psychology, you just don't realize you do. Evolutionary psychology is basically just all the pop-culture psychology research that took place between the 1940s and 1950s that influenced all the minutia of psychology for about twenty some years. It's full of self-reaffirming ideas, cultural bias, and misconceptions from those times. If you lived in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, chances are you were completely inundated with it, and based on everything you've been saying (men and women have certain evolutionary dictated gender roles and tendencies towards violence or non-violence) you were exposed to it and believed it.

The problem *I* have with it is that those misconceptions persist in the modern time even after the data results have been retested and discredited.

Suffice to say, I really think you need to look into all this some more, because I think what's going on is that you're talking about things you heard when you were young that you've internalized. I'm concerned because that's not a good thing for you or for gender relations in general.

Quote:

Ergo, please feel free to judge me however you will, this isn't something we can debate given you are apparently unwilling or unable to see any flaws whatsoever in your position.

Niki, I'm arguing with you because these ideas are discredited. Yes, perhaps both of us are getting emotional - I've been frustrated from the beginning with this thread, as I said already.

But it's very important you understand your own beliefs, they did in fact come from somewhere, they aren't just common sense observations about the world, but very dangerous discriminatory ideas about gender models. Not only that, but they are actually working at cross-purposes with your goals, if your goals are to achieve gender equality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:39 AM

Niki, looks to me like I accidentally projected some of Pizmo's ideas onto you. I apologize for that.

But, I do really recommend you look into the discrepancies of Evolutionary Psychology, if you're willing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If murder is your singular litmus test for humaneness, it will be a very long time before I am able to test my point- a point contingent on society treating men and women the same. Even in Israel, where women are allowed into combat, and women have led the nation, they aren't regarded the equal of men or raised with the same values as men.

However, if you are prepared to accept 'hurting others' as the basis for inhumane behavior, I think you may find that the sexes are much more evenly matched.

When we raise women the way we raise men, indoctrinate them the way we indoctrinate men, then the only difference I expect to find in murder rates is likely to be the differnce caused by a variance of upper-body strength. I do NOT expect a difference of any imagined built-in humaneness of the female heart.

I think murder is a huge litmus test - you don't just erase one person, you destroy families, even nations. I think you are watering down the criteria and throwing the net awfully wide when you say "hurting others" - sure, we can all be shits in varying degrees.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

Hello,

I think you're confusing physical differences with psychological differences.

If I become angry at someone who is standing in front of me, I have a much greater chance of successfully murdering them than my wife does, even if we have equal *desire* in that moment to commit murder.

I am larger, heavier, and stronger than she is.

So if we both become equally 'murdering mad,' I am more likely to commit a successful murder.

If we are both confronted with something that makes us angry, I have better capability to deal with it physically than she does. When an angry person weighs their options for retaliation, this raw capability is likely to come into the equation. Why? Because I am less humane and she is more humane? Or because I'm better built and perhaps even better raised for clobbering things?

For those who argue that more men solve their problems with violence (or try to) I posit that is because we CAN, and because we have been RAISED to. If women knew they could do so as easily, I think they would.

I reiterate that in an equal society, the only difference in women and men in terms of violence will relate to physical capability (or weapons at hand- the great equalizer) and not some innate quality of humaneness.

This belief in inherent female goodness is an offshoot of the same kind of chivalry that my father indoctrinated into me as a youth. We were raised to believe some pretty notions, but they're not real notions. They're just a chosen propaganda created at some point as a social tool for shaping society in what was perceived to be a desirable direction. If only chivalry had contained a doctrine of gender equality instead of feminine frailty and goodness and preciousness, we might be even further along as a society.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:45 AM

Oonj, no.

Cooperation isn't a male only trait. That's just... No.

This is what I'm talking about. This is Evolutionary Psychology.

You guys, cooperation and social abilities are a HUMAN trait. You don't think it took cooperation for women to look after the young? And that's if we're assuming that only the males hunted, which I'm not convinced about. How did they eat in a female only group? There would have had to have been some based on geography, childhood mortality, and simple bad luck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:47 AM

Pizmo: "exclusives" implies "only". It excludes the alternative.

Please explain what you meant if you did not mean exclusive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:54 AM

I don't think murder is the worst thing you can do to someone.

So perhaps this is where the discrepancy is in regards to the differing views over levels of violence.

Abuse is abuse, and all abuse is violence and aggression. And all of it undermines society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, it's not important enough for me to research it further. I DID grow up from the 50s on, and what I observed was the societal indoctrination you speak of, which I simply refused to accept and lived my own life. It used to make me angry, now it just makes me sad. I was always proud that Paula and I refused to accept that bullshit, that we played with toy horses and never owned Barbie dolls, that neither of us ever intended to marry or have children (and wouldn't have married, as I've said, except for society forcing us to), that she became a ranger and I worked in animal rehab. It still frustrates me that women haven't achieved parity, and now angers me that they're trying to push us backwards--if you want, that's my "cause".

Tho' the real "cause" for me is women's reproductive rights, and for me that DOES make it a male-female argument. As I see it, the only females calling for limitations on women's choice and health are those who still buy INTO the indoctrination you mentioned, or are so brainwashed they can't see the truth, OR are subservient to their husbands. I don't know which, I find it incomprehensible that any woman wouldn't be incensed by what's happening, so I can't guess what goes through their minds. Other than that, it's men behind all this.

But when it comes to men and women, I've lived 63 years and my observations about aggression and sexuality have only been false in a few cases of men I've known who are the exception more than the rule. Several of those were gay, and in them I saw a sensitivity I didn't see in other men. Some, to be clear, were NOT.

I've been speaking in general terms and have noted there are exceptions to everything. But in general, all my life I've seen the same things over and over enough to convince me. I freely admit MOST of it is societally-induced, which frustrates me because until we change society, we won't change those things.

But I cannot conceive of equating circumcision, which is certainly child abuse, with gender mutilation of women, which is a HORROR, pure and simple. I agree to disagree on that point.

I've been hooked into this thread far too long, I'm going to try to extricate myself. Thank you for your civility and realizing you've attributed some things to me which were not mine. I appreciate that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:03 PM

(moved)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
What royalty did doesn't count; they had virtually unlimited power and weren't for the most part considered "women".

Hello,

If anything it counts more, I'd think. Unlimited power reveals the unfettered desires of the individual. If you're looking for the innate qualities of a person, giving them the ability to do anything without consequence is a good way to find it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
So when Indira Ghandi kills off a bunch of Pakistani, it's not because she hates Pakistanis or because of religious tensions between Hindu and Muslim, but because she has to prove herself to men.

Hello,

Men also do horrible, horrible things to prove themselves to men.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:14 PM

Quote:
Byte, it's not important enough for me to research it further. I DID grow up from the 50s on, and what I observed was the societal indoctrination you speak of, which I simply refused to accept and lived my own life. It used to make me angry, now it just makes me sad. I was always proud that Paula and I refused to accept that bullshit, that we played with toy horses and never owned Barbie dolls, that neither of us ever intended to marry or have children (and wouldn't have married, as I've said, except for society forcing us to), that she became a ranger and I worked in animal rehab. It still frustrates me that women haven't achieved parity, and now angers me that they're trying to push us backwards--if you want, that's my "cause".

Tho' the real "cause" for me is women's reproductive rights, and for me that DOES make it a male-female argument. As I see it, the only females calling for limitations on women's choice and health are those who still buy INTO the indoctrination you mentioned, or are so brainwashed they can't see the truth, OR are subservient to their husbands. I don't know which, I find it incomprehensible that any woman wouldn't be incensed by what's happening, so I can't guess what goes through their minds. Other than that, it's men behind all this.

I guess if that's what you want to see as your goal, then that's up to you. I just think you'd make a lot more headway if your goal was equal rights.

But I think that the reproductive rights issue is quite a bit simpler than a male conspiracy to keep the women folk down, and I also think it's a separate deal from whether women can vote or have a job. The argument has been made that somehow this is a gateway leading to the removal of the right to vote or work, and I don't fully understand where that perception comes from.

Quote:
But when it comes to men and women, I've lived 63 years and my observations about aggression and sexuality have only been false in a few cases of men I've known who are the exception more than the rule. Several of those were gay, and in them I saw a sensitivity I didn't see in other men. Some, to be clear, were NOT.

I... I don't really think sexuality is an indicator for aggression or non-aggression either. It'd be like saying all lesbians are by nature really masculine, and therefore more aggressive. I just don't think any of this is accurate, even if it "sounds" right or what has casually "been observed."

Quote:
child abuse, with gender mutilation of women, which is a HORROR, pure and simple. I agree to disagree on that point.

...I can't really understand how sexual child abuse doesn't constitute a HORROR, pure and simple, but okay?

Quote:
I'm going to try to extricate myself. Thank you for your civility and realizing you've attributed some things to me which were not mine. I appreciate that.

There are... Some things I'd still very seriously disagree with you on, but yes, I think somehow things were escalating because there was some sort of cross-communication going on with ideas coming from elsewhere that weren't necessarily what either of us were saying.

I think it's a nice day out there for you. Definitely, we should enjoy it, instead of tearing each other apart here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:19 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's approximately 4% genetic variability differences that can attributed to gender. Obviously, if gender differences were any more extreme than this, it would make fetal development very complicated.

Um. This is overly reductive, I think. Vast areas of human experience, identity, culture have been busy for millenia shaping human nature beyond this 4%.

As per the article that spawned this astonishing clusterfuck of a conversation: "Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children." Is it so hard to imagine that these distinctions might have profound effects on the development of the female psyche? Can't you imagine that the experience of childbirth and nurturing might have an impact on the morality/values of the creature that experiences such things? That a creature brought up among other such creatures would learn and develope self-identity different from the creature who experiences none of these things and is raised, at least in part, by other such creatures as himself?

Women, y'know, naturally bleed, quite a lot by male standards, every month for most of their lives. It's a big deal. A very real, experiencial difference between the sexes. You can't imagine that might have a profound effect on their attitudes toward pain and violence? See, men, in general, don't bleed unless something is wrong with them. Bleeding = bad. Women bleed as a matter of course. Bleeding = growing up. That alone will naturally feed into primitive assumptions each gender has about themselves and the other.

Now, what it all adds up to is exquisitely debatable, but to say that there are no meaningful differences between how the male psyche values and the how the female psyche values is just incurious. Lazy. Possibly phobic. Imagining that these differences would not have serious cultural and moral implications is willful ignorance.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
So when Indira Ghandi kills off a bunch of Pakistani, it's not because she hates Pakistanis or because of religious tensions between Hindu and Muslim, but because she has to prove herself to men.

Hello,

Men also do horrible, horrible things to prove themselves to men.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Well, sure, but why is that so certainly the bad female ruler's motivation? Couldn't some of them also happen to be bigots?

And even if it was, shouldn't both male and female leaders be held accountable for actions like that, whether they were performed under peer-pressure or not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:24 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
So when Indira Ghandi kills off a bunch of Pakistani, it's not because she hates Pakistanis or because of religious tensions between Hindu and Muslim, but because she has to prove herself to men.

Hello,

Men also do horrible, horrible things to prove themselves to men.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Well, sure, but why is that so certainly the bad female ruler's motivation? Couldn't some of them also happen to be bigots?

And even if it was, shouldn't both male and female leaders be held accountable for actions like that, whether they were performed under peer-pressure or not?

Hello,

Absolutely, which was rather my point. Whether proving yourself to the neighboring King, or the other members of your gang, you're still doing some rather nasty shite.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:26 PM

Quote:
Um. This is overly reductive, I think. Vast areas of human experience, identity, culture have been busy for millenia shaping human nature beyond this 4%.

GENETIC difference. Of course there are environmental pressures beyond just genetics that can alter the outcome.

Quote:
"Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children." Is it so hard to imagine that these distinctions might have profound effects on the development of the female psyche?

Yes?

Unless, perhaps my heart or my liver have some pertinent influence on my psyche as well.

Quote:
Can't you imagine that the experience of childbirth and nurturing might have an impact on the morality/values of the creature that experiences such things?

No?

Some women kill their children, or abuse them. Some never have them, and that does not necessarily degrade their morality values or potential.

Quote:
That a creature brought up among other such creatures would learn and develope self-identity different from the creature who experiences none of these things and is rased, at least in part, by other such creatures as himself?

I don't know what this means?

Quote:
Bleeding = bad. Women bleed as a matter of course. Bleeding = growing up. That alone will naturally feed into primitive assumptions each gender has about themselves and the other.

Wouldn't this suggest men would be less violent?

Quote:
but to say that there are no meaningful differences between how the male psyche values and the how the female psyche values is just incurious. Lazy. Possibly phobic.

And a constant battle against people who would right laws saying women like me can't go to school or practice science because they think my brain's just different from the much more logical and rational male haha!

Screw them.

Quote:
Imagining that these differences would not have serious cultural and moral implications is willful ignorance.

I can agree there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:34 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you Cav, very eloquent and I wish I could be as succinct and eloquent as you have.

Byte, I popped back in here out of curiosity (dammit), and only have one thing to say:

Quote:
I don't really think sexuality is an indicator for aggression or non-aggression either

Again you misunderstood. I wasn't connecting them, or comparing them, I was merely remarking ON them, on two aspects I've observed. No connection, okay? It IS a beautiful day here, but I've wasted most of it here and have to go pick Jim up now. That's okay, I got mine yesterday, which was also beautiful and I lay in the Outback bed noticing that and thinking "okay, where the hell will I take the dogs TODAY?" Remembered I'd been told about a great dog park in the East Bay (I NEVER go to the East Bay if I can avoid it!) so took them there. It's right on the Bay, LOADED with dogs, you can sit and look at SF and Mt. Tam in the distance, and, most of all, my back let me walk it for over an hour (don't know when that last happened!). So I got mine then, and it's already after 2 here...Jim's asking me to pick him up at the ferry more and more often lately (he rides his bike to the ferry then from the port to his office in SF). Worries me...he's getting more and more tired and I WISH he'd see his way to quitting completely, dammit. Three days a week is still too many.

Anyway, it's almost 70 out there (too warm for my taste!) so I'm off to have breakfast (yeah, I've been stuck here THAT long--baaaaad girl!!!) and pick him up.

I'll leave you with this:

Quote:
Is it so hard to imagine that these distinctions might have profound effects on the development of the female psyche?

Quote:
Unless, perhaps my heart or my liver have some pertinent influence on my psyche as well.

Isn't it true that our bodies carry memories and messages? Might this not come into it? 'Ta.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 1:35 PM

Quote Bytemite: "And a constant battle against people who would right laws saying women like me can't go to school
or practice science because they think my brain's just different from the much more logical and rational male haha!"

Is this your idea of equality? =>
Equality means the same as = as good as. Equality means the female brain is just as logical and rational as the
male brain. In fact, equality means that women are just as good as men at the bad stuff, like murder. Men and women
have the exact same urges, priorities, strengths and weaknesses? And if we say this, we mean All women and All men,
or else it wouldn't be true? Women and men are the Same.
Is that where you're hung, Byte?

Write "laws saying women like me can't go to school" ... Isn't this full circle to ridiculous victimhood?

If women are the same/equal to men in every way, except we can also have babies, then aren't we superior to men? Hmmm.

Obviously, your brain Is as logical and rational as some of the men who post in here. Not in a good way.
Scientific method requires logic, rationality, and objectivity. The ability to recognize and accept facts. If one is
not born with a predisposition to these traits, they can be learned. By a clear and open mind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 2:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then you don't know the nature of ideology in America.

So I'll ask you specifically

- When a woman needs to have an abortion to save her life but it's specifically forbidden by law - how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to save her?

- When a girl is raped by her father and can't get an abortion even when the pregnancy is due to thar rape, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to rescue her?

- When the pill is illegal b/c it violates fertilized egg 'personhood' laws, and any woman can be made liable to being pregnant at the whim of any man who doesn't care to use a condom, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to free her from reproductive slavery?

- When is woman is vaginally raped by a technician at the behest of the state in a procedure done NOT on the advice of a medical doctor with the consent of the woman, but as an ideological exercise of power, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to free her from state-mandated rape? A rape, I will add, that she will have to pay for.

THIS is the nature of the laws that are being introduced and passed in the US.

Ahh, are you suggesting that I support such things or that I don't encourage standing up to such things? Has anything I've ever said on these boards indicated as such?

But you can stand up to, protest, discuss, debate and employ a whole lot of tactics for change without resorting to name calling and dirty tricks and abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 2:44 PM

Quote:
Equality means the same as = as good as. Equality means the female brain is just as logical and rational as the
male brain. In fact, equality means that women are just as good as men at the bad stuff, like murder. Men and women
have the exact same urges, priorities, strengths and weaknesses? And if we say this, we mean All women and All men,
or else it wouldn't be true? Women and men are the Same.

It's like you're trying to satirize what I'm saying. But I'm of the belief that we're all human, yes.

Quote:
... Isn't this full circle to ridiculous victimhood?

I went to school and I do science. I refuse to listen to anyone who says I should be doing something else and don't think I'm fit for this because of psychological or gender differences. Because they're wrong.

Please feel free to point out exactly where I'm whining here, acting victimized, or asking for someone else to help me.

Quote:
If women are the same/equal to men in every way, except we can also have babies, then aren't we superior to men? Hmmm.

What is all this about only women having young? My understanding is that it takes genetic material from two parents.

I'd also say that having children has it's downsides, and is not exactly a measurement for... anything, really. What exactly are you considering it an improvement to? Blowing up to gigantic proportions and suffering from emotional instability while waddling around the house passing gas and yarfing into convenient recepticals? Perhaps the potential for death during childbirth due to our poor physiological adaption to that function? Yes, I can see how that is better than the alternative state.

To be fair, I suspect men would have much the same problems.

Quote:
Not in a good way.

Uh.

Quote:
The ability to recognize and accept facts. If one is
not born with a predisposition to these traits, they can be learned. By a clear and open mind.

What.

I am trying, and very close to failing, to not go into a full-on rant here. I am holding back because I can't be sure my interpretation of your last part of this is what I think it is. Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 4:05 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

We are all people. That does not mean there are not differences between the two genders. Those differences are general differences, such as the fact that men tend to be heavier, taller and physically stronger then women. That does not mean that all women are weaker then all men. Nor does that mean those differences exclude one gender from doing any job as well as the other.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 4:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I am trying, and very close to failing, to not go into a full-on rant here. I am holding back because I can't be sure my interpretation of your last part of this is what I think it is. Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

Hello,

I have noticed that she posts in a kind of haiku- Not a true haiku, but I don't know what else to call it. It's a kind of poetic brevity.

Brevity, no doubt, meant to distil meaning to its essential component.

But, like you, I am often left confused as to the full intent of the language.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 5:07 PM

Oonj: Is this your idea of equality? => Equality means the same as = as good as. ... Women and men are the Same.

Bytemite: It's like you're trying to satirize what I'm saying. But I'm of the belief that we're all human, yes.

Oonj: Satire not intended. To me, men and women are both human. But they are different from one another. Indeed,
all human beings are unique. Perhaps I am the one who needs to change my language. Masculine characteristics are
blah-blah-bling; but feminine characteristics are blah-blah-blum. I speak of differences while saying it's inclusive,
it's all human.

If I say that males are more prone to combat than females, and they are better at it, and You reply that No, females
are just as violent, because women sometimes commit rape ... and Niki says their rape-rate is miniscule compared
to men ... to me, that is a true difference between men and women.

I have met masculine women and feminine men; they are human.

I am just trying to understand your opinion. Do you really think that men and women are the same? Or am I missing your point?

Bytemite: "And a constant battle against people who would right laws saying women like me can't go to school or
practice science because they think my brain's just different from the much more logical and rational male haha!"

Oonj: Isn't this full circle to ridiculous victimhood?
If you are saying that lawmakers keep you out of school and prevent you from learning science because of your gender,
I'd say, Well, they can try. But you can still learn that stuff if you decide to. Of course, you can't get a degree in science
if the law of the land says, "No women allowed." But we do have women scientists, so how'd they do it?

By the way, last time I looked, brain science was published saying that men and women's brains do have physiological
differences.

Bytemite: "I went to school and I do science. I refuse to listen to anyone who says I should be doing something else
and don't think I'm fit for this because of psychological or gender differences. Because they're wrong."

Oonj: You went to school and you do science. You proved 'em wrong (as women have done for generations). So what's
the problem?

Bytemite: "What is all this about only women having young? My understanding is that it takes genetic material from
two parents."

Oonj: I stand corrected.

Oonj: Obviously, your brain Is as logical and rational as some of the men who post in here. Not in a good way.

Bytemite: Uh. ... What.

That means: Several people have posted here that men and women are both human, but they are different.

But You keep denying the obvious differences. Thus you sound irrational to me. Just as some men do.
That's what I meant.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 5:13 PM

Obviously, rape and homocide are not the only measure of violence.

Quote:
But You keep denying the obvious differences. Thus you sound irrational to me. Just as some men do.
That's what I meant.

Yesss, that's what I thought you meant. The pertinent issue however is that the differences aren't so different. A man can become a women, and vice versa. This is not an insurmountable barrier, and so obviously men and women are not different, just two states of the same human gestalt. Individuals, however, are.

We are not the sum of our flesh and organs. We are the sum of our minds. To focus on that is to lose sight over everything more important.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 8:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"....one in every ten rape victims is male. Recent studies by the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies found that victimized men accounted for 6% (9,040 men) of completed rapes, 9 % (10,270 men) of attempted rapes, and 11% (17,130 men) of completed and attempted sexual assaults reported."

Just wanted to point out that of these rapes, most are committed by men.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 8:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"There's approximately 4% genetic variability differences that can attributed to gender."

Human genetic differences are about 0.5%, the percent difference between human and chimps is about 2.7%.

4% is a comparatively powerful difference.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 8:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"There's approximately 4% genetic variability differences that can attributed to gender."

Human genetic differences are about 0.5%, the percent difference between human and chimps is about 2.7%.

4% is a comparatively powerful difference.

Hello,

If my understanding of the math is correct, we are talking about 4% of .5%?

Isn't that like .02%?

Or did I mistake something? I'm a bit confused about how all these percents interrelate.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 8:40 PM

I googled the variability by gender, but couldn't find a number, so I took the size of the X chromosomes relative to the total genome. I figured it was probably high but it was the only estimate I could come up with at the time.

It would have been more accurate to say that the X chromosomes only represent about 4% of the total genome, instead of talking genetic variability.

But... I might be able to calculate the percent difference between the two main possible arrangements.

"In humans, the Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA), contains 78 genes and represents approximately 2% of the total DNA in a male cell."

"The X chromosome in humans spans more than 153 million base pairs (the building material of DNA). It represents about 2000 out of 20,000 - 25,000 genes."

So the difference by gender would be about 78/20,000 or 0.035%. Unless I'm doing this wrong again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans for a total of 46.

But where men have one Y chromosome in an XY pair women have an X chromosome in an XX pair. That means that (more or less by rough calculation) women and men are different by 1 chromosome out of 46, for a 2.17% difference, OR if you are going to count them in pairs, 1 pair out of 23 is different for a difference of 4.35% And then when you take into account that the X chromosome is large compared to other chromosomes, you boost those percentages.

When it comes to chimps and humans, if you were to take all the meaningful DNA sequences and compare them to each other, you would find they mostly match up except for a small percentage.

It's an extremely simplistic way to look at it b/c the timing of gene activation and silencing accounts for huge differences not apparent by simple genetic similarities and differences alone. And it doesn't account for a lot of what people used to think of as 'junk' DNA which may influence gene activation and silencing.

But to me it indicate there are profound differences between women and men. We may be built on the same 96-98% overall human plan, but genetically, there is that 2% (or 4%) difference over all the characteristics between women and men.

I also want to say that human economies - and therefore the role of women and men - seem to be driven more by what people TELL THEMSELVES that 'people are' and less by actual evolutionary constraints.

But aWAAAAaaayyyyy back when, I was introduced to a concept that went - sterility negates virility. That means that the biggest, strongest, smartest most aggressive male is an evolutionary dud without significantly higher numbers of offspring. And then years later I was introduced to another concept that went - child mortality negates fertility. In other words, it doesn't matter how wantonly the male sows his wild oats if the CHILDREN DON'T SURVIVE to have children of their own.

And when you think of the primitive human female - one in the belly, one at the breast, one on the hip, and the rest tagging along - trying to not only survive and keep alive all those mouths to feed, but trying to do that in the face of COMPETITION FROM AGGRESSIVE MALES - you see that males MUST have had an important role in keeping the young alive.

Like birds that hatch helpless young, it takes at least a pair of adults to keep those young alive long enough to become independent breeding adults themselves.

And how humans are unlike species where the young are relatively independent - foals can stand and run within hours - where the males are simply sperm donors and too many males in the best feeding grounds are simply too much competiton for females and young. There one male is more than enough in terms of species survival for several females, and the rest of the males are driven out.

And given how relatively helpless even human ADULTS are of either sex compared to say - chimpanzees - it takes a village to raise a child, with a welcome hand from language and the slow accretion of technology like the bowl, the sharp rock, and fire.

Anyway, in a technological society living beyond mere daily survival these equations no longer hold, but they may be the basis for the fact that females and males are not SO dimorphic and do exist in fairly equal numbers unlike true harem species.

BTW the bonobo chimp doesn't specialize in role by sex the way regular chimps so - females hunt just as much as males with equal portions of females as males being successful hunters. And there doesn't appear to be the kind of hierarchical dominance by select males of both other males and females regarding food and resources as there is in regular chimps.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I feel I'm still missing something.

I read that we are 2.7% genetically different from monkeys, and men are 4% genetically different from women?

I find it hard to believe I have more genetic material in common with a monkey than with a woman.

And then... are we talking male monkeys and not female monkeys?

It is possible I am not intelligent enough to decipher the full meanings of these percentages.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Comparing females to females and males to males.

In terms of raw genetic differences there are just as much - or more - differences between human females and human males as there are between a female chimp and a female human.

HOWEVER - timing of genes is everything, accounting for the large differences we see between humans and chimps compared to the relatively small genetic differences (among genes material we think is significant).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:48 PM

I think she just proved that chimps are people, too.
But we knew that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 9:58 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
THE Republican Party has a problem with women. It is a problem that runs far deeper than the rants of the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and it is one that casts light on the agonising deadlock in the party's attempt to select a presidential candidate.

It reveals deep fractures within the Grand Old Party, between its Washington establishment and its ascendant conservative base, between economic drives and evangelical culture warriors.

The Limbaugh explosion, which dominated news in the US right through the Super Tuesday polls, was sparked by a hearing held by a Republican congressman, Darrell Issa, in mid-February called ''Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?''

It was to explore whether an element of Obamacare that required employers to provide their staff health insurance for treatment that may run contrary to their religious beliefs - say contraception - conflicted with religious freedom. The Democrats watered down the bill, but the Republicans maintained their attack.

Issa's committee refused to allow any women to testify on contraception in the hearing and so Democrats held their own unofficial proceeding. Sandra Fluke was invited to testify.

Fluke, a law student at the Jesuit Georgetown University and veteran campaigner on women's issues, particularly domestic violence, told the story of a friend at the university who was unable to secure coverage for contraception to help treat her polycystic ovary syndrome and lost an ovary as a result.

The story was picked up by conservative blogs. One ran with the headline ''Sex-crazed co-eds going broke buying birth control, student tells Pelosi hearing touting freebie mandate''.

On February 29, a week before Super Tuesday, the biggest day in the primary calendar, Rush Limbaugh picked it up.

Limbaugh is a Republican giant. George W. Bush once made a show of carrying his bags into a White House guest room for him. Since 2009 he has been a voice of the Tea Party.

Limbaugh said Fluke was demanding the government pay for her sex life.

''What does that make her?

''It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.''

Despite public outrage, Limbaugh had another go on March 1: ''If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.''

Over the coming days, Limbaugh offered two backhanded apologies to Fluke, once reaffirming his position on birth control before apologising for his ''choice of words'' and once lamenting that he had ''acted too much like the leftists who despise me''.

By then, no Republican could do an interview without facing Fluke questions, and none seemed to know what to say. Clips of Fluke and Limbaugh ran in an endless cycle on cable and network news.

There was Sandra Fluke, captured looking poised, young, smart and articulate in broadcast quality vision. There was Limbaugh on his own grainy webcam, pudgy, balding and grey in a rumpled shirt.

By Super Tuesday, 26 companies had pulled their ads from Limbaugh's program, President Barack Obama had called Fluke to offer his support. Democrats began running ads calling on supporters to elect more women to congress at the general election and sending out fund-raising letters quoting Limbaugh. But not a single prominent Republican had stepped away from Limbaugh.

Rick Santorum would only go as far as saying Limbaugh was ''being absurd'', while Mitt Romney offered: ''It's not the language I would have used.'' A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, the most senior elected Republican in the land, said Limbaugh's comments were ''inappropriate''. Former presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann said that conservative women had copped abuse as well.

Sarah Palin went even further.

''I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologise and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is … the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenceless.''

By Wednesday this became the standard line whenever conservatives discussed the issue.

It went like this - comedian Bill Maher had called Sarah Palin a MILF (Google it if you must) while she was running for vice-president in 2008, Maher had donated $1 million to a committee supporting Obama, those attacking Rush Limbaugh were therefore hypocrites.

The conservative TV host Bill O'Reilly dismissed a viewer's suggestion that attacking a politician was different to attacking a law student, saying Fluke had publicly adopted a political position.

On breakfast TV on International Women's Day Bachmann was again asked about the issue. She said the outrage against Limbaugh was ''overkill'', noting there had been no support for her from the left when she had been abused anonymously on Twitter.

Advertisers were not as squeamish.

By Wednesday, ABC News had gathered a list of 27 advertisers that had pulled out of Limbaugh's show. (Limbaugh denied the figure and claimed to have signed on three new advertisers, but said: ''Now, obviously, I'm not gonna tell you who they are today.'' He said another was ''begging'' to return.)

THE controversy over contraception - or at least contraception paid for at the behest of government regulation - did not come out of the blue.

The starting point for all this is the 2010 mid-term elections. The financial crisis had hit middle America hard and there was widespread fury that the Obama government had bailed out the banks.

The Tea Party insurgency erupted. The loose movement that included libertarians and religious conservatives helped the Republicans secure 63 seats in the House of Representatives, recapturing the majority. The party took six seats in the Senate and won 680 seats in state elections.

As delighted as the Republican establishment was to find itself with a new active and energetic base, it soon discovered many of its new elected representatives considered social issues - such as contraception and birth control - as more important than other political issues.

Over the coming months the states of Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas and Kansas sought to end funding to Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organisation providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services, and abortion.

Because of a Republican congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood, the group for a time even had its funding pulled by a breast cancer charity called Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

After a public backlash, the group recanted.

''We want to apologise to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives,'' said its president and founder Nancy Brinker.

By then, though, some on the left had already started alleging there was a ''Republican war on women''.

Towards the end of last year the debate intensified. In October last year, presidential candidate Rick Santorum said: ''[Contraception] is not OK. It's a licence to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.''

In November in Mississippi a ''personhood amendment'' that would have defined life as beginning at fertilisation failed. It was seen as an attempt to trigger a challenge to Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established the right to abortion.

Last month, the state of Virginia sought a bill that would force women who had abortions to have an ultrasound. Because most abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, most women would need to have a transvaginal procedure in which a probe is inserted into the vagina.

''The law provides that women … will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason,'' wrote Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick in a piece that was debated by conservative and liberal media around the country. ''I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under the federal definition.''

At the last minute, the Republican Governor who proposed the Virginia bill, Bob McDonnell, amended its most controversial elements. By then though, a 2009 Washington Post article revealing that McDonnell had once submitted a master's thesis in which he described working women and feminists as ''detrimental'' to the family had been widely recirculated.

The bill passed last week and Virginia will become the eighth state to require women having abortions to undergo ultrasounds.

Also last week the Republican senator Roy Blunt attempted to bundle changes to the Obamacare contraceptive regulations on to a highway funding bill.

The Blunt amendment never had a chance - Democrats hold the Senate, but a similar bill is still pending in the House of Representatives.

The issue became central to the primary race, where some supporters were not helping the cause.

On the same day as the Issa hearings, Foster Friess, the billionaire Rick Santorum donor, told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell: ''You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly.''

THE problem the Republican establishment faces is clear. How does it mollify its new crusading army without alienating women, moderate Republicans and independent voters?

(Elections tend to be won among independents.)

Worse, at least from the point of view of the party establishment, moderate Republicans have discovered that when they fail to push hard enough on these so-called cultural issues, the Tea Party turns on them.

In Alaska, an unknown candidate named Joe Miller, who was endorsed by Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin, won endorsement over incumbent moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski, who eventually won her seat as an independent.

Similar stories played out in Utah and in Delaware. The message was clear: incumbency is no protection from the Tea Party.

The strain on the party is showing. Lead presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been shunted further and further to the right on social issues as he competes with two remaining conservative favourites, Santorum and Gingrich. Campaign logic dictates he will have to race back to the middle should he win the primaries. He faces a marathon.

The senior moderate senator Olympia Snowe resigned at the end of February. ''Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,'' she said. She voted against the Blunt amendment.

The Republican Senate candidate Linda Lingle spoke out against the Blunt amendment, while the Alaskan Lisa Murkowski told media she now regretted supporting it.

Some of the numbers are starting to look bad too.

In 2008, Obama beat John McCain by 41 points among single women, by some accounts, securing him the election.

Republicans had been whittling away at that lead, but an Associated Press-GfK poll showed Obama's support among women climbing 10 per cent between December and February.

Last year, a survey found that 98 per cent of sexually active American women, including Catholics and evangelicals, used birth control.

On Wednesday, a survey was published showing 63 per cent of Americans supported Obama's contraception policy, including 83 per cent of Democrats, 62 per cent of independents and 42 per cent of Republicans.

On Super Tuesday, Obama said: ''I believe that the Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy …''

Hours later, Romney and Gingrich were both introduced at functions by their wives, both of whom directly addressed women and sought to guide the debate back to the economy.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/getting-it-wrong-on-womens-rights-20120
309-1upvu.html#ixzz1ohMiYSk6

And again I say "Handmaiden's Tale"> Anyone getting ready to leg it to Canada yet?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA

*snort*
Well, old proverb I took to heart some time back...
"If you do not KNOW the answer, then you must BE the answer."

And if women in general ain't up to putting a boot to the rear of these cretins, well, imma just have to get behind that and push.
And I can push... really, really hard.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons...seriously thinking about it, if things keep going this way! I love my country, but I'm aghast at what I see it turning into. Hoping for the usual pendulum swing, at this point, but hoping it doesn't swing equally back the other way!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:33 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I think you're confusing physical differences with psychological differences.

If I become angry at someone who is standing in front of me, I have a much greater chance of successfully murdering them than my wife does, even if we have equal *desire* in that moment to commit murder.

I am larger, heavier, and stronger than she is.

So if we both become equally 'murdering mad,' I am more likely to commit a successful murder.

If we are both confronted with something that makes us angry, I have better capability to deal with it physically than she does. When an angry person weighs their options for retaliation, this raw capability is likely to come into the equation. Why? Because I am less humane and she is more humane? Or because I'm better built and perhaps even better raised for clobbering things?

For those who argue that more men solve their problems with violence (or try to) I posit that is because we CAN, and because we have been RAISED to. If women knew they could do so as easily, I think they would.

I reiterate that in an equal society, the only difference in women and men in terms of violence will relate to physical capability (or weapons at hand- the great equalizer) and not some innate quality of humaneness.

This belief in inherent female goodness is an offshoot of the same kind of chivalry that my father indoctrinated into me as a youth. We were raised to believe some pretty notions, but they're not real notions. They're just a chosen propaganda created at some point as a social tool for shaping society in what was perceived to be a desirable direction. If only chivalry had contained a doctrine of gender equality instead of feminine frailty and goodness and preciousness, we might be even further along as a society.

Having left this to marinade over night.... I think we're close to something... how about this:

I agree with most of your post - that's why women imho are more humane than men. I think the obvious physical differences, coupled with what HKC said about differing roles, explains why women are more humane: it's learned behavior. They lack the tools (through much of history) and success rates using violence to act less humane. In your post above, you describe how physical dominance never worked for them, murdering was not a successful option. Over time this must have just become normal behavior, "if I challenge or attack a larger, stronger human, I lose." This, along with HKC's ideas about the differences between hunting and child care (the differences between breast feeding and not breast feeding has to be significant), and you have females not seeing violence, murder, rape as a viable survival path.

The funny thing is we sort of laughed and argued about the single word "knowingly" being inserted in a bill in another thread that made it suddenly a bad bill "one little word," but that might explain a lot here. You, and possibly Byte as well, are holding onto this notion of "inherent." I simply said women were more humane than men. Maybe I should have inserted, "behave" more humanely than men," would that make a difference?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:49 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
would that make a difference?

Hello,

It very well might. Because I do not consider (to use an extreme, hyperbolic example) Hannibal Lecter in solitary confinement to be humane.

But he may commit fewer acts of inhumanity than even the common man, for all his access to victims.

And my premise is that if you remove the confining cell, things would change.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:42 AM

Quote:
1 pair out of 23 is different for a difference of 4.35%

Yeah.

Quote:
But to me it indicate there are profound differences between women and men. We may be built on the same 96-98% overall human plan, but genetically, there is that 2% (or 4%) difference over all the characteristics between women and men.

Well. But there's only 78 additional genes on the Y chromosome, and two X chromosomes are basically redundant. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.

78 genes is not a whole lot.

Quote:
you see that males MUST have had an important role in keeping the young alive.

I'd agree, and I'd also guess that other females did as well. Milk is milk, y'know?

But yeah, I doubt that prehistoric humans had as defined gender roles as researchers thought they did in the 50s.

Quote:
There one male is more than enough in terms of species survival for several females, and the rest of the males are driven out.

Depends. If you model human dynamics on the Bonobo, then everyone's basically a swinger and it's less so much important individual reproductive success and more important GROUP reproductive success. And with multiple females, you get the possibility that the alpha males get to mate with the best females, but they also get tired out so there's still some leftovers for the less awesome males.

If you model human dynamics on regular chimps or baboons, then yes.

The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Oh, I see you brought this up.

Quote:

BTW the bonobo chimp doesn't specialize in role by sex the way regular chimps so - females hunt just as much as males with equal portions of females as males being successful hunters. And there doesn't appear to be the kind of hierarchical dominance by select males of both other males and females regarding food and resources as there is in regular chimps.

Yes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:48 AM

Quote:

Similar stories played out in Utah and in Delaware. The message was clear: incumbency is no protection from the Tea Party.

Well, keep in mind that the incumbent from Utah was hardly a moderate, and also an idiot. Now if only we can kick Orrin Hatch out of office, because I hate that guy.

I don't even care that their replacements are also idiots, I was just sick of the incumbent's corruption. Good riddance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:52 AM

Quote:
explains why women are more humane: it's learned behavior.

Warmer...

Quote:
They lack the tools (through much of history) and success rates using violence to act less humane.

Cold.

Quote:
you describe how physical dominance never worked for them, murdering was not a successful option.

Ice cold.

Quote:
This, along with HKC's ideas about the differences between hunting and child care (the differences between breast feeding and not breast feeding has to be significant), and you have females not seeing violence, murder, rape as a viable survival path.

I dub thee Yukon Cornelius, intrepid explorer of the martian arctic.

What did I just finish saying about evolutionary psychology and what was the content of the post 1kiki made about this? Come on you guys, now you're just tweaking me on purpose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think the problem here is the attempt to use historical parameters to predict future behavior.

When in fact I believe that if the future parameters change, the future behavior will change.

Put everyone on an utterly even playing field, and they will all suck or shine at the same rate.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:58 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Byte,

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
"Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children." Is it so hard to imagine that these distinctions might have profound effects on the development of the female psyche?

Yes?

Unless, perhaps my heart or my liver have some pertinent influence on my psyche as well.

From this and other posts, you seem to feel a huge split between the mind and the body. You seem to identify wholly with the mind and see the body as some arbitrary, possibly embarrassing affliction. Male or female is all a matter of the body and so it has nothing to do with who you are, only the unfortunate happenstance of birth. Weird, in an atheist. I mean, this kind of thinking is far more in keeping with a soul/body split we commonly see among religious folk.

I'm really not sure how to take your comment about the heart and liver as a reply to my post. Are you making fun of the preposterousness of my thinking? Of course your heart and your liver influence your psyche. How could they not? But the point I was making was about primary and secondary sexual characteristics which affect your psyche specifically as a woman. I get it that you chafe at any such a notion: you are female, so you must think or feel "x"! And you are quite right, individual men and women may deviate from the norm. It just don't mean, therefore, that there is no norm. Or that the norm has no basis in biology.

Quote:
Quote:
Can't you imagine that the experience of childbirth and nurturing might have an impact on the morality/values of the creature that experiences such things?

No?

Some women kill their children, or abuse them. Some never have them, and that does not necessarily degrade their morality values or potential.

This is shockingly specious coming from you. It puts me in mind of the right-wing lie that if one person is able to rise from nothing to become a multi-billionaire, why then America is a classless society and all us bleeding-hearts should either follow this exceptional person's example or stfu! So, because some small percentage of women kill their children, the natural bond between mother and child is null and void???

No one but you is talking about these absolutes. ALL MEN blah blah blah, ALL WOMEN yadda yadda. You railing against these imaginary absolutists does nothing for your argument.

Quote:
Quote:
That a creature brought up among other such creatures would learn and develope self-identity different from the creature who experiences none of these things and is rased, at least in part, by other such creatures as himself?

I don't know what this means?

Is it 'cause I can't spell?

The majority of cultures I am aware of throughout history have practiced some degree of gender segregation. Young children tend all to be cared for by their mothers and other adult females, but as they mature, at some point they will go to live among adult women or adult men, in effect creating two cultures, a male culture and a female culture. There are exceptions, but even in our relatively integrated modern world, these two cultures exist. I believe that these cultures are in part the result of local variation and in part universal, owing to the disparate aspects of the genders. Yes, of course, there are transgender individuals, there always have been and societies have integrated them (or refused to do so) to varying degrees. Still, transgender is relatively rare. No? If I have offended you, I'm sorry. I do not intend to.

Quote:
Quote:
Bleeding = bad. Women bleed as a matter of course. Bleeding = growing up. That alone will naturally feed into primitive assumptions each gender has about themselves and the other.

Wouldn't this suggest men would be less violent?

Well, sure, if one had no familiarity with human psychology. This is where I start getting annoyed. You grant me no context and merely riff on the barest bones of my argument. I don't think you're posting to troll me, but it's hard to tell from what you write sometimes. Just sayin'.

To answer your question. Absolutely not. We're talking about what gets integrated into "the self" and what gets projected onto "the other." The human who bleeds regularly, on a monthly basis, will tend to integrate bleeding into her own identity, her own sense of her own nature. It will be, relatively, destigmatized. And therefore, when that person feels enraged and wants to hurt or destroy "the other" the thought "make them bleed" is not going to be uppermost in her mind. See what I mean?

Whereas, the human who has only bled as the result of some mischance, or as the result of violence perpetrated upon him, may, when wishing another person harm, come up with "make them bleed" a lot more readily. Your notion that the differing experiences of bleeding in men and women would lead women to be more violent doesn't make any kind of sense if you were to think about it for five seconds, far as I can see. Please, give me that much consideration when posting.

It also influencse a person's attitude toward pain. A man may live the bulk of his life and not acknowledge his pain. Not be aware of it. That kind of dissociation is necessarily rarer among women.

Similarly, the difference between one's entire biological contribution to a new life being the ejaculation of semen at the moment of orgasm and carrying a baby to term after 8 full months of symbiotic coexistence with the developing life, would naturally have profound consequences on a person's attitude toward the baby, no? At least statistically? The bare fact that a man can have a child without even realizing it and a woman will always know who the mother of her baby is has got to have some far reaching implications, no?

Quote:
Quote:
but to say that there are no meaningful differences between how the male psyche values and the how the female psyche values is just incurious. Lazy. Possibly phobic.

And a constant battle against people who would right laws saying women like me can't go to school or practice science because they think my brain's just different from the much more logical and rational male haha!

Screw them.

Non sequitur. If we must perpetrate a lie about gender equivalence in order to secure equal rights we don't deserve them, and good golly, we'll never get them. All humans deserve equal rights UNDER THE LAW. That has nothing to do with the facts of gender and identity and everything to do with the APPROPRIATE LIMITS OF STATE POWER.

Quote:
Quote:
Imagining that these differences would not have serious cultural and moral implications is willful ignorance.

I can agree there.

That's nice to know, but you seem to contradict this sentiment with your other comments. If you agree with me that gender differences having serious moral implications, what implications might those be?

I think it would help a great deal if you took more time with your answers than you have here. Every time you get quippy like this, you end up sounding snarky, dismissive, even trolly. I KNOW this is not your intent, so I'm just sayin': if you went into just a little more depth about what you think and how and why, successful communication might happen more frequently.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 10, 2012 8:20 AM