• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Patriarchy...or the Best System?

roughdraft274 said:
I'm always amazed when someone seems so certain of something that is so absolutely hard to be certain of. Biology is complicated. Biology in regards to personality traits are complicated as ****. Saying that general personality traits have absolutely no biological basis is akin to saying "I'm going to believe this and I don't care about evidence or facts or reason."

Are you merely saying that it's not purely biological? Or that it's 'mostly' something we are taught? Or are you saying you are sure it has nothing to do with biology?
Click to expand...

See post #23, please.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Part of the problem is that my last post was a mess, I often do extensive edits as I try to add in quality but this time I did it very poorly, I ended up with a post that is partly incoherent.



We get more done when everyone puts the skills that are most needed by the collective to work for the collective, but keeping the collective healthy is much more complicated than that. it is not just being good at something, it is the being fulfilled by doing that something, wanting to do that something, and being able to sustain the work at that something thus having the opportnity of getting good at it.

We have decided that we need 50% of the people doing STEM work to be women regardless of whether women are good at it or want to do it or are willing to stick with it for a lifetime and thus get really good at it. This is stupid, and is an example of what I think you are talking about about how we dont think things through....we dont care about the realities that get in the way of the fantasy we have in our heads (50% of stem geniuses will be women one day!"...we plow ahead trying to make humanity into our UTOPIAN DREAMS. So we spend a lot of time and money putting women into STEM careers only to see the vast majority of them leave the career usually early which the feminists point to and say "See, the women are leaving, they must be getting abused, we have to fix the career field!" but maybe they are leaving because they dont enjoy the work. Maybe they are leaving because it is too hard to do both a Stem career well and have kids because a STEM career is so demanding of their time because it has to be...this is not easy work. But the Feminists will hear none of that, if they do hear anyone talking about that then they get really pissy and insulting that the conversation is happening and they do what ever they can to shut down the conversation.

This "WE MUST HAVE 50/50!" dictate is really dumb, certainly you and I can agree on that.
Click to expand...


No worries. I think I mostly tracked what you were saying and I think we're pretty much in agreement.

And I believe that's 100% correct, fulfillment is extremely important when it comes to what you do. That's why we're fortunate that for every possible skill or ability that we have need of, there's a decently sized demographic that enjoys filling that need. I'll use the architect example again since I have a friend who is one. He started school pretty much knowing that he wanted to be an architect. He focused on his goal, committed himself to getting his degree for it and enjoyed doing it. No real reason WHY he enjoys it, he just does. He's also naturally good at it, in that he grasps all the principles and concepts related to being a good architect and now he had a job in a good firm that he makes good money in, doing what he loves. Again, why is naturally good at all this? I don't have a clear answer other than that's how he was born, for lack of a better term. Just like how I was born to lift heavy things and argue with people on the internet(maybe I'm not the best at the latter but I enjoy doing it).

Affirmative action truly is the worst. We're seeing it a lot in the fire service now(first hand for me). The FDNY has actually been making news lately because of it. They're now so obsessed with getting a certain percentage of each demographic that they're apparently forgetting that they need to get the people who are best at lifting heavy **** and breaking down doors. Your point about women leaving to have kids is exactly correct I think, any professional career demands basically your entire life, whether it's STEM, doctor, lawyer, whatever. Men are best suited for that because they a) can't bear kids themselves, and b) can use their careers to provide for their families, which means they can get double the fulfillment out of both working and providing(the need to provide for someone else, btw, is something I firmly believe is built into the male psych, no matter what the slackers may tell you). Now maybe certain women WILL go back to work in a demanding career after having kids, that's perfectly fine obviously, but the vast majority won't because their base instinct now is to take care of that child that they just spent 9 months growing inside them. Again, no one size fits all but it's certainly not "society" saying they have to go back to work.

We do agree. Feminists equate 50/50 with equality when really equality comes from being free to do what you do best, whether it's STEM, child rearing or whatever else. Being equal doesn't mean we have to be the same. Being different is what makes us strongest as we've already discussed.
 
NoMereRanger said:
Have had this discussion with a female friend of mine before: She contends that most of history demonstrates the existence of an all-powerful patriarchy. Men have the final say in everything, men physically impose themselves on women, men have all the fun. I contend that evolution has enabled both genders with specific attributes that lend themselves to our survival. From there we developed the best ways to do things and thus became the dominate species on this planet. I don't deny that sexism has always existed and will most likely exist for as long as we do. I only posit that, in general, men tend to gravitate towards certain roles and women towards others because we realized that it was best for the continuation of our species. For example, men tend to be more assertive and bigger assholes, which make them better leaders. Women tend to be more empathetic and understanding, making them better caretakers. All this is a long winded way of saying "There are gender roles." Right or wrong?
Click to expand...
IMO this is incorrect.

Men and women are mentally wired differently, have different hormones and different ratios of hormones, and in generalized terms do think and act differently on many things.
 
ecofarm said:
See post #23, please.
Click to expand...

Shorthand for "I've already made a poorly defended point, please refer back to it and quit forcing me to expand upon it." LOL


Individual biology plays a role. Plenty of men are inclined to be passive. But what makes the difference between sexes, what creates the disparity in aggression, is socialization not biology.
Click to expand...

Again, who is "conditioning" men to be aggressive? Is it other men? If so who "conditioned" the first men to be aggressive and the first women to be nurturing? When we were still monkeys did the male monkeys hoot aggressively at the boy monkeys in order to enforce the idea that they needed to be aggressive as well? Or don't all animal species display traits and characteristics specific to their genders without any social pressure or conditioning? Animals certainly aren't "conditioned", they rely on instinct, and since we're basically glorified animals...
 
Lursa said:
IMO this is incorrect.

Men and women are mentally wired differently, have different hormones and different ratios of hormones, and in generalized terms do think and act differently on many things.
Click to expand...

How is that contrary to what I was saying? I basically agree with your statement here.
 
NoMereRanger said:
Shorthand for "I've already made a poorly defended point, please refer back to it and quit forcing me to expand upon it." LOL
Click to expand...

That's pathetic but I'll respond for the audience.

When I posted:
Boys are taught to be aggressive, go after what they want, take leadership positions. Girls are taught to be patient and courteous.

It's not biological.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the OP and gender roles. I was speaking of the difference between men and women, not about an individual.

Again, who is "conditioning" men to be aggressive? Is it other men? If so who "conditioned" the first men to be aggressive and the first women to be nurturing? When we were still monkeys did the male monkeys hoot aggressively at the boy monkeys in order to enforce the idea that they needed to be aggressive as well? Or don't all animal species display traits and characteristics specific to their genders without any social pressure or conditioning? Animals certainly aren't "conditioned", they rely on instinct, and since we're basically glorified animals...
Click to expand...

Men have been taught to be aggressive, and women to be passive, since the dawn of man.
 
NoMereRanger said:
No worries. I think I mostly tracked what you were saying and I think we're pretty much in agreement.

And I believe that's 100% correct, fulfillment is extremely important when it comes to what you do. That's why we're fortunate that for every possible skill or ability that we have need of, there's a decently sized demographic that enjoys filling that need. I'll use the architect example again since I have a friend who is one. He started school pretty much knowing that he wanted to be an architect. He focused on his goal, committed himself to getting his degree for it and enjoyed doing it. No real reason WHY he enjoys it, he just does. He's also naturally good at it, in that he grasps all the principles and concepts related to being a good architect and now he had a job in a good firm that he makes good money in, doing what he loves. Again, why is naturally good at all this? I don't have a clear answer other than that's how he was born, for lack of a better term. Just like how I was born to lift heavy things and argue with people on the internet(maybe I'm not the best at the latter but I enjoy doing it).

Affirmative action truly is the worst. We're seeing it a lot in the fire service now(first hand for me). The FDNY has actually been making news lately because of it. They're now so obsessed with getting a certain percentage of each demographic that they're apparently forgetting that they need to get the people who are best at lifting heavy **** and breaking down doors. Your point about women leaving to have kids is exactly correct I think, any professional career demands basically your entire life, whether it's STEM, doctor, lawyer, whatever. Men are best suited for that because they a) can't bear kids themselves, and b) can use their careers to provide for their families, which means they can get double the fulfillment out of both working and providing(the need to provide for someone else, btw, is something I firmly believe is built into the male psych, no matter what the slackers may tell you). Now maybe certain women WILL go back to work in a demanding career after having kids, that's perfectly fine obviously, but the vast majority won't because their base instinct now is to take care of that child that they just spent 9 months growing inside them. Again, no one size fits all but it's certainly not "society" saying they have to go back to work.

We do agree. Feminists equate 50/50 with equality when really equality comes from being free to do what you do best, whether it's STEM, child rearing or whatever else. Being equal doesn't mean we have to be the same. Being different is what makes us strongest as we've already discussed.
Click to expand...

Hey Welcome Aboard DP, I hope you like it here and stick around.
 
For the Thread:

Male Uber drivers make 7 percent more than women who drive for the ride-sharing company, a new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows.

Analyzing data from more than 1 million Uber drivers, researchers discovered some reasons behind the differences, The Washington Post reports.

Men tend to drive faster, giving them the opportunity to make more trips, the research revealed. Men who drive an average of 2.2 percent faster than women explained at least half of the wage gap.

Men also will risk driving in locations that will bring them more money, but might feel less safe for women drivers. Driving more late-night hours also gave men a financial advantage, Yahoo Finance reports.
Click to expand...
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2018/07/why-women-uber-drivers-make-less.html

Men are more productive UBER drivers....if the feminists have a problem with that they can suck it.
 
NoMereRanger said:
How is that contrary to what I was saying? I basically agree with your statement here.
Click to expand...

Because you made it sound like it's a conscious decision. For the most part, it's not altho society acts on individuals a great deal.

NoMereRanger said:
I only posit that, in general, men tend to gravitate towards certain roles and women towards others because we realized that it was best for the continuation of our species. For example, men tend to be more assertive and bigger assholes, which make them better leaders. Women tend to be more empathetic and understanding, making them better caretakers.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Individual biology plays a role. Plenty of men are inclined to be passive. But what makes the difference between sexes, what creates the disparity in aggression, is socialization not biology.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can make that claim and pretend like you are so sure. We know that men and women have different amounts of hormones, on average, flowing through their body. We also know that if we give you a bunch of different hormones that little personality traits will likely change. Nearly all depression meds have to do with balancing chemicals that your body naturally produces and contains. So if we know for a fact that these balances are in fact different among the sexes and that these balances can affect these traits, you simply can't make the claim that biology has nothing to do with it.

On top of that, if it were only society that played in to the difference between the sexes then we should see some societies that completely disregard the "norm" as we see it. Women should be more aggressive etc. But we really don't see that. We see different levels of civility depending on the culture, but the men are still more likely to flock to certain jobs, more likely to commit crimes, be aggressive etc. and the women are more likely to want to take caretaker positions such as nursing or service related jobs or stay home with the kids.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I don't know how you can make that claim and pretend like you are so sure. We know that men and women have different amounts of hormones, on average, flowing through their body. We also know that if we give you a bunch of different hormones that little personality traits will likely change. Nearly all depression meds have to do with balancing chemicals that your body naturally produces and contains. So if we know for a fact that these balances are in fact different among the sexes and that these balances can affect these traits, you simply can't make the claim that biology has nothing to do with it.

On top of that, if it were only society that played in to the difference between the sexes then we should see some societies that completely disregard the "norm" as we see it. Women should be more aggressive etc. But we really don't see that. We see different levels of civility depending on the culture, but the men are still more likely to flock to certain jobs, more likely to commit crimes, be aggressive etc. and the women are more likely to want to take caretaker positions such as nursing or service related jobs or stay home with the kids.
Click to expand...

Biology is always a factor but social disparities are social not biological. Women are not less inclined to math, or more inclined to baking. We did that.

Matriarchal societies have existed. Plenty of women "behave like men". Society is segregated, today, by gender roles.
 
ecofarm said:
Biology is always a factor but social disparities are social not biological. Women are not less inclined to math, or more inclined to baking. We did that.

Matriarchal societies have existed. Plenty of women "behave like men". Society is segregated, today, by gender roles.
Click to expand...

Then in countries where there is complete freedom to choose your profession we should expect to see more women flocking in to jobs that you generally don't think they should flock to?

I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that women are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim.

And even more of them don't "behave like men". Saying that some do is almost a pointless statement when looking at what we are talking about. When talking about huge groups, saying "I know of a woman that acts like a man" doesn't further your argument.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Then in countries where there is complete freedom to choose your profession we should expect to see more women flocking in to jobs that you generally don't think they should flock to?
Click to expand...

Freedom does not end gender roles, expectations and conformity.

I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that women are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim.
Click to expand...

That's sexist ignorance. Maybe we should believe black people are less inclined, at least until you see proof otherwise?

You do understand how presuming inferiority is sexist, right?

And even more of them don't "behave like men". Saying that some do is almost a pointless statement when looking at what we are talking about. When talking about huge groups, saying "I know of a woman that acts like a man" doesn't further your argument.
Click to expand...

It proves biological sex does not dictate personality.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Freedom does not end gender roles, expectations and conformity.



That's sexist ignorance. Maybe we should believe black people are less inclined, at least until you see proof otherwise?

You do understand how presuming inferiority is sexist, right?



It proves biological sex does not dictate personality.
Click to expand...

I haven't presumed inferiority. I've merely stated that you have no evidence for your claim that biology doesn't play a role in gender differences has no evidence. I haven't made the claim that women are worse at math or that they tend to not go into careers heavy in math because they aren't intelligent enough to do so or anything like that.

Asking for proof of a claim isn't sexism. You need to understand that. You are talking to a person that thinks women should be nothing but free to pursue any career choice that makes them happy. I'm civil engineer and I've dealt with numerous women who are better or more knowledgeable about aspects of engineering than I am, and I'm damn good at what I do. Hell, I have enjoyed working with damn near every woman that I've ever worked with where as I can't say that about all of the guys I've worked with. I've met some really stubborn assholes in the workplace that made working on a project with them almost unbearable. I've never come across that with a female designer or engineer or project manager. They aren't "inferior". I'm just saying that on whole, when speaking about the entire group, it's very likely that biology is responsible for at the very least a little bit of the difference in the average personalities between men and women. That's not a crazy statement. It's just reality.

ecofarm said:
It proves biological sex does not dictate personality.
Click to expand...

And no one is making this claim. I have never once in my entire life said "well she's a woman so she must be *insert personality trait*" That's not the argument here. There are variations in groups. Of course. That doesn't negate any of my claims at all.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Asking for proof of a claim isn't sexism. You need to understand that.
Click to expand...

Presuming a group to be inferior is bigoted. When the group presumed to be inferior is females, it's sexist. You need to understand that.

roughdraft274 said:
I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that women are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim.
Click to expand...

Presuming women are inferior. The definition of sexism.

What would you call someone who says, "I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that blacks are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim."

There's no ****ing grey area there, right?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Presuming a group to be inferior is bigoted. When the group presumed to be inferior is females, it's sexist. You need to understand that.
Click to expand...
When have I said any group is inferior? I said they might be "less inclined". [/QUOTE]


ecofarm said:
Presuming women are inferior. The definition of sexism.

What would you call someone who says, "I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that blacks are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim."

There's no ****ing grey area there, right?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't call them racist. They aren't saying blacks are inferior. You need to understand this. No one is calling anyone "inferior". You made a claim that biology didn't play a role in group traits. I said "well I don't know if you can say that until we have evidence" and then you pretend like I said "blacks are inferior because genetics". You are purposefully bringing up the most heated topic to try to get me to back down rather than go after my actual logic. To see who is right we should take all of the shock elements away and evaluate.


You: X is true. Y is false.
Me: I don't know. X is incredibly complicated and we have no real evidence of X being true. We would need actual proof before claiming that X is true or to what extent it's true.
You: Well you are a terrible person because you think Y is true.
Me: I never said Y is true.
You: But you said X is false!
Me: No I merely said we don't have the evidence to make definitive claims.

When looking at that, with all of the extra baggage left out of the conversation, it's very clear that I'm right and you're making a claim that you can't be positive of. If you merely want to claim "I find it likely that" then I wouldn't argue. You also have to understand that saying that there are biological differences is NOT the same as saying that that one group is inferior. I also agree that if I were to meet someone who dedicated their lives to studying whether blacks were "inferior" in some way (your words) then we should be extremely questionable of their motives. But as of right now you are attacking me and swearing at me simply because I won't agree with claims that you make with 100% certainty without 100% definitive evidence.
 
roughdraft274 said:
When have I said any group is inferior? I said they might be "less inclined".
Click to expand...

No, you said you believe women are inferior in math until proven otherwise, and you're firm in your position because you've seen no proof otherwise.

In what way do you think that's not taking a position?

To top it off, I need to prove a negative for you to abandon your blatantly sexist position. You know I can't prove a negative, right? So your sexist belief is, for all logical purposes, unassailable. By shifting the burden of proof, you made it impossible to to disprove what is effectively your claim while you've not provided any evidence for your claim.

To make sure you understand, my claim is the negative. Your claim is women are inferior. So you do understand that you need to prove, not me.

Beyond any doubt. No question. Sexist statement:

I'm not sure if it's true or exactly how much it's true, but you just can't say that women are not less inclined to math unless you have proof. Definitive proof. As of yet I've seen none. I don't think you can make such a definitive claim.
Click to expand...

There's no debate. It's sexist. You have a good day.
 
ecofarm said:
No, you said you believe women are inferior in math until proven otherwise, and you're firm in your position because you've seen no proof otherwise.

In what way do you think that's not taking a position?

To top it off, I need to prove a negative for you to abandon your blatantly sexist position. You know I can't prove a negative, right? So your sexist belief is, for all logical purposes, unassailable. By shifting the burden of proof, you made it impossible to to disprove what is effectively your claim while you've not provided any evidence for your claim.

To make sure you understand, my claim is the negative. Your claim is women are inferior. So you do understand that you need to prove, not me.

Beyond any doubt. No question. Sexist statement:



There's no debate. It's sexist. You have a good day.
Click to expand...

I never said that. I said that can't claim that you know that they are not less inclined unless you have evidence. I never said the opposite was true. You're being unfair with your interpretations. And I bet I can proove it to you.

I bet I can explain/reword your position in a way that you would agree with my words but you couldn't do the same with my claim.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I never said that. I said that can't claim that you know that they are not less inclined unless you have evidence. I never said the opposite was true. You're being unfair with your interpretations. And I bet I can proove it to you.

I bet I can explain/reword your position in a way that you would agree with my words but you couldn't do the same with my claim.
Click to expand...

"Women are inferior" is not an acceptable default. I say again, good day.
 
ecofarm said:
"Women are inferior" is not an acceptable default. I say again, good day.
Click to expand...

Lol, I never said that was the default.

Why are you so scared of actually hearing what I'm saying? This is absolutely bizarre. I'm telling you exactly what I said and exactly what I meant and you seem hell bent on twisting it to "you said women are inferior". If that's honestly what you think I'm saying then I have explained myself poorly or you haven't really understood what I said. My entire argument can be summed up with "you need proof to make a definitive claim". That's it. Biology is complicated and making definitive claims about it should be avoided unless we have good evidence.
 
ecofarm said:
That's pathetic but I'll respond for the audience.

When I posted:


I was referring to the OP and gender roles. I was speaking of the difference between men and women, not about an individual.



Men have been taught to be aggressive, and women to be passive, since the dawn of man.
Click to expand...


Again, you can keep saying that like a broken record but until you explain the why or how, it's not a very convincing argument, sorry.
 
NoMereRanger said:
Again, you can keep saying that like a broken record but until you explain the why or how, it's not a very convincing argument, sorry.
Click to expand...

Try anthropology 101, something free online should suffice. Don't pretend you could be convinced here, that's BS and you know it.
 
Lursa said:
Because you made it sound like it's a conscious decision. For the most part, it's not altho society acts on individuals a great deal.
Click to expand...


Oooooooh gottcha. I'll try to clarify. I think there's definitely an element of conscious choice in anything humans do as opposed to other animals, simply because of our intellect and capacity to reason. So we might have those base instincts of "Me man, me go fight!" or what have you, but we're also conscious of our inherent drive towards those things. Hence the reason we can choose to do multiple different things, as opposed to other animals, who can only do what their instincts tell them to do. So we tend towards certain roles both because a)we're naturally driven towards them and b)we realize that doing so will benefit me/you/us.

Again, I think we're basically in agreement, just a question of me clarifying.
 
ecofarm said:
Try anthropology 101, something free online should suffice. Don't pretend you could be convinced here, that's BS and you know it.
Click to expand...


"I don't want to have to make an argument, so I'm gonna tell you to go look it up somewhere else." You got me there. :shrug:

And I'm at least open to the idea of hearing alternative arguments but you've literally given me nothing but a bunch of blanket statements with nothing to support them. I at least threw a few articles your way.
 
NoMereRanger said:
"I don't want to have to make an argument, so I'm gonna tell you to go look it up somewhere else." You got me there. :shrug:

And I'm at least open to the idea of hearing alternative arguments but you've literally given me nothing but a bunch of blanket statements with nothing to support them. I at least threw a few articles your way.
Click to expand...

You win! Yay! Take a screen shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom