Newsflash: Men and Women are different
This goes out to everyone's favorite ass clown, John. Ok let's start with a term used for primates.
Sexual dimorphism- characteristic anatomical (and behavioral)
differences between males and females of a species.
Yes this is quite a common trait of primates and is taken right out of my anthropology book last semester, Humankind Emerging by Bernard Campbell and James Loy.
Here is an excerpt from the paragraph explaining it:
Charles Darwin. in his discussion of sexual selection, noted that competition
for mates is unequal between the sexes of most species.
My book even lists the bonds between males-males as "strong" and females-females as
"weak to moderate" in comparisons with other primates. I mean if you make a joke about women being catty towards each other, it is sexist. but apparently anthropologists who study primates recognize bonds between females in the human species as weak. This isn't some outdated old school book. These two guys are crazy liberals. They talk about global warming, the need for environmental harmony, and lot of other modern liberal shit all over the place. The thing is, when it comes to hard science, they can't avoid it all the time. They have to admit that genetic behavior patterns are different between the sexes. And whatever difference there is between genetical behavior and real life behavior, the human species tends to magnify those differences because of cultural evolution, an evolution just as real as genetic. Because culture has become complex, the need for physical evolution decreased because we could do some of it ourselves. Here is an excerpt:
The importance of a cultural way of life cannot be overemphasized. our
reliance on cultural adaptation has set us apart from the other primates.
For better or worse, we are the only living primate species that exerts any
control over its own evolutionary future.
Ok so if I made the statement that I think society should promote women raising children and being home-oriented, and that men should bring home the bacon, it would be considered sexist, no? Well, if evolutionary and culturally, our society has moved that way, then what is sexism?
Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social
roles based on gender
So let's play more grammatical games, what is stereotyping?
A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or
image.
Ok so a formulaic and oversimplified conception. Now are anthropologists stereotyping women when they say their bonds between themselves are weaker than men? I would have to say that they are. They are painting women with a broad brush. So when I say that women trend toward passiveness or that men trend towards aggressiveness or that males in the human species are more aggressive genetically and then subsequently culturally than females. , this is true but also sexist.
So what we have is basically an obsolete word. You can't generalize at all even though there are definite general patterns recognized by accomplished scholars. The cruz of the situation is this "generalization" theme. We can't generalize is the point of the politically correct asshole. But guess what, generalizing is the first step in conveying meaning. When conveying any idea to someone, you start basic. What do you have in your hands clupbert?
I have a ball- well that's pretty general
I have a red ball.
I have a big red bouncy ball.
Even that is general. Language is all about generalizations. As long as the speaker of language can realize that we use words to fit objects and not to fit objects to words, then we can generalize all day. So if you call me sexist, then you have to call anthropologists and psychologists sexists. Because they make generalizations about each sex all over the place. And if you are still skeptical that women and men are actually genetically different, then read this book here. It is a common liberal thing to attribute differences between the sexes to "socially constructed gender roles". Sounds nice, but is not true unfortunately.
10 Comments:
OK, here it goes, one argument at a time.
" Firstly, in comparison to many other species (including other primates) humans have a low level of sexual dimorphism."
"Sexual dimorphism manifests itself in humans by differences in overall body size traits, compared to the larger degree of sexual dimorphism displayed by other primates, especially chimpanzees and bonobos."
Ok so my book cites the size difference between males and females in 4 groups- gorillas females are 50% the size, Bonobos-75%, chimps-78%, Humans-81%, and Gibbons are 94%. So if you're talking about gorillas you may be right, but we're right in the middle of the pack of apes.
"Clupbert, tell me if I'm wrong. Are humans most likely to practice monogamy?"
Yes you are wrong. My book rates humans as naturally "mildly polygymous to promiscuous". It also states that monogamous creatures are less sexually dimorphic. Only we're not naturally monogamous, so you deduce that one yourself.
"Just because Charles Darwin "noted that competition for mates is unequal between the sexes of most species." "
Well just because Darwin was sexist, doesn't make everything he said untrue. The authors are two clearly non-sexist liberal ninnies like yourself, and they have chosen to quote Darwin only when he is right. When you see a Darwin quote in this book, it means that they approve of the statement as scientific and were quoting a renowned evolutionist to give it some support. It could be considered that they made the statement themselves. I can't believe I had to explain that to you.
"I find it curious that you didn't include a quote about the bonding nature between males and females."
Why? I just thought it was unimportant, but here it is anyway. The rate them as "strong".
"This seems to suggest that the authors feel that culture predetermines actions."
No, this is wrong. It is not a black and white thing for one. And let me explain this to you because you obviously don't understand cultural evolution or adaptation. In our genetics we have certain different behavioral patterns. We also have a gene that tells us to magnify those patterns even greater. Because we can do the same job as physical evolution through culture (only faster), culture became as part of how we survived as our physical bodies. It is natural not only to have physical differences among the sexes, but also natural to exascerbate them. Both of these things are in our genetics. How we exascerbate them seems to be pretty common across many many cultures? Don't you find that a strange coincidence? Maybe it is because humans all have the same genetics...
"So, if our CULTURE (using the evidence you provided, Clupbert) discourages bonding between women, does it not makes sense for women to be "catty"? "
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Here you're supposing that women are catty because of culture while I argue that the culture is catty because of women.
"So yes, I can call someone who describes that as NATURAL as sexist. Because those gender roles are NOT NATURAL. "
Umm going off to work and going off to hunt and taking care of the domicile in a village and taking care of the domicile in a suburb seems to be strangely correllary. Just because you're in a little box where you can't see this correlation, doesn't mean it isn't there. And like I said, cultural evolution is extremely natural, and written in to our genetic code. So basically how ever we want to arrange ourselves sociologically is right because we say it is. Whatever feels right is right, because we're the boss of our own evolution. If we give women the same opportunities men do, and we do because we have laws for that, but the trend in society is still that more men work, then you have to be fine with it. When idiot liberals like yourself argue that things aren't equal because there aren't an equal number of congressman of each sex or CEO's of each sex, you're assuming they should be the same. This just isn't true.
Your next part of the paragraph about stereotypes of each sex is quite an idiotic analyzation. If you don't understand why certain attributes are sought in each sex, then you don't know about evolutionary "fitness". Go read up about it and get back to me. And I don't think women are mentally less capable than men, I have seen the average IQ score of each sex and the differences are negligible. It is just a matter of what lifestyle each sex is more comfortable with.
"We fit words to objects? So, language came before objects? Explain this incredible idea to me, Clupbert."
You read the sentence wrong or you're an idiot, you choose which. Here is the sentence:
"we use words to fit objects and not to fit objects to words"
It'd be like someone saying that is a big red ball, and then you betting them that the ball is bigger than 1 meter cubed. They would say no to the bet because words are relative, and actions should be taken based on reality and not relativities. Seriously, read the sentence again. Words are changeable and reality is not, that is the point. You can use words all day and it doesn't change reality unless someone takes action on those words. Liberal retards like yourself argue about words and messages all day. People like me worry not about words, and worry only about actions.
"Basing your answer on the [sexual] behaviour of women in recent times is a little like studying giraffes in a zoo and concluding they can't run" -Barbara Ehrenreich."
Well that's why the anthropologists in the book look at primate behavior and cultures with non specific gender roles for children. They're scientists asshole, they know what they're doing.
"And I still can't believe you are referring to me as a "liberal". I thought we established that you didn't know what you were talking about."
No we established that you don't know what you are talking about. Liberal doesn't mean the same thing as it did 200 years ago. I think you think that language is a set of concrete meanings and terms. It evolves to mean different things over time. Have you ever read old english or modern english? Why don't you buy yourself a copy of the OED and start to learn how words change meanings. In this day and age, liberal means someone who thinks they are a progressive, radical equalizing retard like yourself. Look it up in the dictionary and tell me what it says. WORDS ARE NOT NUMBERS, THE MEANINGS CHANGE. YOU ARE AN IMBECILE. Look up imbecile, it's a good example of what I mean.
Your biggest problem is that you judge people based on verbiage and I judge people based on their actions. You think someone who is homophobic is someone who says a song is gay, I think someone is homophobic if they don't hire someone because they're gay. You just don't understand language that well, that's all. Words aren't real, and actions are. I just don't care about being becoming either shithead. Read that book I mentioned and it will explain it to you.
"ask any psychologist why children have no memory before the age of about three."
Hmm this is a little bit of an outdated theory. "Infantile amnesia" is related to brain development, or lack of it. The hippocampus and frontal lobe grow a ton during the age from 0-3. Psycologists agree that the brain is just not developed enough to store memories. Here is an excerpt from my psych 101 book, Myers in Modules by David G. Myers:
"The lack of neural connections helps explain why our earliest memories seldom pre-date our third birthdays. We see this in the memories of a group of preschoolers who experienced an emergency fire evacuation caused by a burning popcorn maker. Seven years later they were able to recall the alarm and what caused it- if they were 4-5 years old at the time. Those experienced the event as 3-year-olds could not remember the cause and usually misrecalled being already outside when the alarm already sounded."
"The fact is that language is the only way that culture and "reality" can exist."
Look I didn't say language wasn't a useful and vital tool. The bottomline though is that words aren't prescriptions for actions. Because someone says something, doesn't mean that what they are saying is reality. Why not give someone who threatens to kill someone the same penalty for killing them? The only reason they get punished at all is it because it is assumed that a threat is an actionable statement. Matter of fact, the few limits to free speech are direct actionable threats to society. Why? Because speech doesn't hurt anyone and only actions do. If you're so concerned about language why don't you take that politically correct asshole to task? All he wants to do is create an atmosphere of "correct" speech which effectively takes all the most meaningful words out of language.
" In essence no one even has a reality until they have a language for it."
Well this is an asinine statement but it will let me explain what the purpose of language is. It is a relative medium to exchange ideas. All words are just relative representations of ideas or objects. There is nothing concrete about language like he supposes when he says I can't call him a liberal. My point is that language is a changing medium, and one that only acquires real impact if someone acts upon it.
"'Why? Because speech doesn't hurt anyone and only actions do.'
THIS is asinine."
No one ever was admitted to a hospital on the basis of "taunting and defamation". I mean it in the literal sense. Only the most ignorant are moved to action by words. And thanks for the lesson you asshole, completely ignoring everything I said in my paragraph. I just am so sick of arguing with you idiots who go off on tangents and refuse to argue anything substantive.
"How language contructs action means that if two people both kill another human being, one is a hero because that person is a soldier, and the other ends up a murderer sentenced to death"
No this is wrong. Language is not the thing that determines heroism as long as people know the situation. What does it matter what we call them? The words are tools being used to describe someone's thoughts about an action. It doesn't change the action. People look at a situation and judge it based on their psychology of various rights and wrongs, and words are tools to describe it. People can look past words quite easily and only the biggest fools fall prey to propaganda.
"How is it you think that people get to "know the situation"? People only know about things through language."
This is retarded logic. What you're doing is taking any sort of event that has meaning, and claiming that since people use language to communicate to each other through the event, that language is somehow the cause of the event. Language is a medium as much as walking is. Guess what wars don't start without walking, everybody couldn't mobilize to kill someone else without a certain bit of walking, nothing could happen without walking. Language is not a cause or an effect, it is a tool, a medium for communication. It is not the cause of things, only other events, attitudes, moods, and feelings are. You really are a giant ass who has no idea what you're talking about. Language has nothing to do with the things you talk about. Because people communicate through it does not mean shit. This is embarassing just having to explain such simple concepts to you.
"Wars start not because of actions, but because of how people INTERPRET those actions through LANGUAGE. All actions are a response to some other action being interpreted in a particular way. "
Wars don't start because of miscommunication. They start over land, greed, pride, and a whole bunch of other things. Ok Hitler didn't call up Churchill and say, "hey want to go to the bar", and Churchill reply with, "oh, did you ask me if I want to start a war? Ok then your ass is grass" You are so stupid I just can't get over it. How can you say these retarded things? Events don't happen because of misinterpretations. You've reached a point where you lost this argument and are continuing to just blather on like a moron.
That's a laugh.
I countered your point you retard. You have a horrible understanding of cause-effect. Language is like a catalyst and not the chemicals that actually ignite the reaction. You are too thick to understand. Any rational person who reads this thread will see you for the idiot you are.
Do you even think in your whole life? Everything you say is some sociological piece of recycled garbage. And you lose every argument to me and refuse to admit it. It sucks for you to be so stupid.
Big time I do. Do you like your stupid ass self?
Stumbled upon your blog because of a misspelled word I put into Google.
It's some pretty good writing coupled with the most overarching display of ignorance I have ever seen on the web.
Congratulations, you dope. Now fuck off.
Post a Comment
<< Home