Men vs. Women
SophiaSandbox
Regular
So, in a nutshell, why is there such a big ol' contense between guys and girls?
Is one better then the other? Does this change? With all the gender confusion now, how is this going to affect the future?
O.o Thinking about this because of this article:
Source
So what are your thoughts about the battle of the sexes?
Is one better then the other? Does this change? With all the gender confusion now, how is this going to affect the future?
O.o Thinking about this because of this article:
Results of an experimental study varying the sex of the employee and the gender-type of the job demonstrated that men, as well as women, are penalized when they are successful in areas that imply that they have violated gender norms. But the nature of these penalties differed. When depicted as being successful at a female gender-typed job, men were characterized as more ineffectual and afforded less respect than women successful at the same job or than men successful in a gender-consistent position. Women, in contrast, were more interpersonally derogated and disliked when said to be successful at a male gender-typed job. Regardless of these differing characterizations, both men and women successful in gender-inconsistent jobs were reported to be less preferable as bosses than their more normatively consistent counterparts. These results suggest that success, when it violates gender norms, can be disadvantageous for both men and women, but in different ways.
Source
So what are your thoughts about the battle of the sexes?
Comments
Men bringing home the bacon and women cooking it?
Personally I am infavor for not being discriminated against, provided you can do the job equally as someone of the opposite sex.
However I've seen many instances of where people use the gender card where they couldn't do the job as well as their counterparts. (I've seen this from male nurses and from female builders as two examples).
It's kind of like a a retard that wants to be treated equal but then get's to take a 'special' test...
Shouldn't get both :mad:
Agreed.
Do you think that it is artificial? What you believe and what is reality is not necessarily the same thing. Gender roles are not the same in all cultures and homosexuality happens in nature. Nature doesn't have morals (don't try to personify it or impose your moral standards on it). Things are just the way they are and it doesn't matter how much you don't want to believe otherwise.
That being said, men and women are not equal in every aspect (or any individual for that matter) and it doesn't matter how much someone would like to believe that they are. Pick just about any area and there will be a relatively normal distribution of people on varying levels of proficiency with plenty of men and women in both the top and bottom percentages.
I want evidence/proof. This isn't a moral issue from my standpoint. A homosexual pair in any organism that isn't hermaphroditic, cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot pass on their traits or advance their species. Its Evolutionarily unfit and therefore, even if it was natural/hereditary, it would have been bred out by now.
Population is either going to go Logistic or Exponential:
or
Populations of animals tend to go Logistic, any time certain species get overpopulated there's a biological "killswitch". There's even a type of lemur or something that will just start walking off cliffs O.O
So what if homosexuality is natures human "killswitch". That's starting to go into effect more heavily now because by the time we've reached our population limit on earth (it'll be a long while still) that's when the effect's of today's homosexual non-reproduction will kick in.
So maybe homosexuality is HELLA natural :]
Secondly, a genetic killswitch of homosexuality specifically wouldn't make much sense in both of the two options.
If it is a dominant trait, say H, where homogeneously dominant, HH, and heterogeneous, Hh, (h being heterosexual) express homosexuality, then by way of my previous post, the dominant trait would be bred out by inability of reproduction. This situation is also unlikely because there would be more homosexuals than heterosexuals, meaning that 2/3 of the historical human population (Until sperm banks) would have been unable to reproduce and died out. For what we have accomplished and the many other successful traits humans express, this is extremely evolutionarily unfit.
If it is a recessive trait, h, then only homogeneously recessive people, hh, would express homosexuality, while heterogeneous, Hh, would carry the gene for homosexuality but would not express it. This would be more likely, but any offspring of a heterogeneous heterosexual that received both recessive genes (1 in 4) would also be unable to reproduce and die without passing on his genes, eventually leaving only carriers, making a very ineffective killswitch.
This is an evolutionary idealistic situation. Of course factors such as modern day sperm banks and for thousands of years homosexuals would carry on heterosexual relationships to avoid persecution would change the numbers.
Gay penguins lol
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-02-07/news/17414549_1_bruce-bagemihl-homosexual-gay-penguins
:mad: I don't know much about genetics. Is that what even causes these 'killswitches'???
And this is Logarithmic:
And in the earlier post you saw a graph of a Logistic...
Now this is a population graph:
Click here, the picture is WAY TOO FUCKING BIG
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
You may be good at tehscience....But I bitchslap you with math. HUZZAH!
Who knows what causes homosexuality...I'm not gay, so I don't care either way.
There are other concepts of dominance:
There could be multiple alleles, incomplete and semi-dominance, co-dominance and some other stuff too.
I think homosexuals today are just leftys in the past, probably a few decades later it'll just be normal and nobody will take notice of it.
Unless they still talk with a gay lisp.
Holy shit I don't understand the gay lisp, it's like "WHERE YOU BORN WITH IT!?". And then there's straight guys with gay lisps. O.O It freaks me out muy bad
I understand the co-dominance, etc. But if that were the case it would express it self somehow, i.e. everyone loves to suck a dick, but also like some snatch, and then bisexuality would be genetic.
This is all the more I'm going to say on this, especially because thats not the topic of this thread.
I'm actually surprised how good of a post this is. This is what I keep in mind when it comes to the homosexuality issue; personally I find it disgusting and unnatural in the sense of procreation, but I'm not going to hold it against homos, I just don't wish to be around them and wouldn't choose to be a part of a community which condoned it; that's not to say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to do what they do behind closed doors, or in their own community. I resent the homo movements and its political agendas that is trying to force it onto the wider public to accept them, but it doesn't really matter, they're still going to push their agenda; everyone does.
The question I make is if homosexuality is one of nature's ways of cutting out those unfit for reproduction and as a form of population control. I look at it from a eugenic point of view. It is my honest opinion however, that issues such as homosexuality and race-mixing would be cut down if the media was not around to influence. Of course it would still be around, but not as greatly influenced.
Here's my view, quickly summed up somewhat as far as the communities go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WQ3l7SxSr0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGjbf93ij7Q&feature=related
Now coming back to men vs women. Obviously we're not equals; as far as brain size goes there's not much difference between a white man and a white woman on the whole, the minor difference is nearly insignificant. This differs with races obviously, but I won't get into that in this thread.
the logic and reasoning of women have played a huge role in man's evolution and the existance of our race. In the early days white women in past days had to shoot, drive off invaders and wild animals and also be apart of the fight for survival. Now do not think that I am supporting feminists or any such women like that, they are as detrimental to survival as any other enemy for both men and women. I will go into this in more detail at another time when I have more time.
While there are a number of pussified liberals and race traitors out there, there are a good number of white women who are hard working class, fighting and mothering that are willing to put in the work. Nothing can be as powerful as a bond between a mother and child, just like there is nothing more certainly powerful than that of a bond between father and child.
While the man should be the official provider and rock for the family and more inclined for physical work, many great women have been warriors, thinkers and scientists. Not to mention they are thebearers of the future of our race.
Charlotte Corday, Elizabeth of Russia, Yael, Fulvia, Anne-Josèphe Théroigne de Méricourt and Jezebel; these are just few examples of fine capable women who have led armies and ruled empires, and been criminals of the finest kind. Women who stick with their natural instincts, I have much more respect for these kinds, I have respect for ANYONE who lives a life of illegalism especially.
- Euripides
That's the down right truth. I love women and their beauty, their companionship, affection; they're essential to raise us, but any man who thinks realistically will accept the fact that they are a pain in the fucking ass and just as cold if not colder than man can be and will deceive to get what they want. Deception is an essential and neccessary part of their defence.
At the end of the day, I bear in mind the 14 words;
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
"Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth
Related:
I had to skim because I don't have a lot of time but are you saying...White Supremacy?
I'm seriously buggin' out because in school we read an article that I now can't find about differences between races and some stuff about eugenics...
It was either from the Seattle Times or the New York Times, so you guys are just going to have to trust me and the information that I pull from the cobwebbed cupboard labeled school in my brain.
So, Eugenics is shit. It was a propaganda technique used by Nazi extremists to provide "scientific evidence" to the annihilation of Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, etc.
Of course everything is based in truth, the article I read brought up the issue of sickle cell anemia singling out 'blacks'. But really, sickle celled anemia was an adaptation to fight against malaria or something.
The coolest part of the article I read was...
They took groups of people and studied there DNA and whatnot, and came to the conclusion that there are more variations in chromosomes between several people of the same "race" then of people from separate "races".
In fact, the term "race" shouldn't even be used because "race" is determined by skin color and the only reason for different skin colors are adaptations to environments. Of course, now these adaptations don't mean shit because we have access to "artificial adaptations" Nurnurnur sunscreen and people aren't separated by giant bodies of water or mountain ranges or deserts.
Bitch the right term is "ethnicity"
I hope your children marry blacks and have lil' mixed up babies :mad:
BTW your username, that movie, is fucking RAD!!!
I hate to keep arguing with you, but this is also incorrect. Race is broader than ethnicity. Serbians and Poles are ethnically different, but both belong to the Slavic race. Same with Mexicans/Spaniards, both Hispanic but ethnically different.
There has also been multiple scientific studies that have proven biological difference in races other than race-exclusive diseases (Sickle Cell in Blacks, Tay-Sachs in Jews). For example, it is biologically harder for blacks to learn and retain knowledge than it is for whites.
What determines the ability to learn and retain knowledge though?
Are you talking about a gene, or some tests they did when a kid is in elementary school; because then comes in the whole nature vs. nurture stuff.
I don't see how they could determine someones ability to learn and retain knowledge through genetics, but I don't know much about it so...
Each of the two tests (One of which was done by a Chinese Student at my school as part of an independent study) They used larges groups of test scores, brainwave testing, brain growth percentage, and the like to determine that on average blacks have 16 less IQ points than Whites and require about 10-12 weeks extra of instruction to learn the same material.
So they did it on college-age students?
Did they get whites from both high and low societies , the same for blacks?
You'd have to do the full spectrum, toddlers, children, high school students, high school graduates, people with AA degrees, bachelor degrees, master degrees, people from different colleges, different countries.
If you do just America, where many blacks/latinos are stuck in crap ass public schools that don't care about them, and many white students are in private schools or get more attention in public schools.
At my school, the native americans are totally ignored. It really sucks for them when I can walk into class and my teacher will ask me if I did my homework and what I thought about the reading and oh hey, do I want to go to the leadership conference next week and then she won't even notice the native girl coming into class behind me.
...Pshaw what's brain growth percentage?
I believe they did it on school aged children between grades K through 12 in multiple types of schools (Mostly Black, Mostly White, poorly funded, private, etc.) but I do believe they were only schools in America. Other than that I do not know much else about them, its been awhile since I saw the one study and I never really looked into the one at my school, it was old news to me at the time.
Brain growth percentage is the amount of new brain cells over a given period of time in comparison to the size of the brain beforehand.
That's retarded. You could say the same thing about condoms. I think homosexuality is a by-product of consciousness; awareness that there is a norm, and the unconscious desire to deviate from that. This would seem to be reinforced by the fact homosexuality occurs in other intelligent mammals, id est dolphins and such. Do you really think it is 'unnatural' (do I read as: wrong?) or are you just scared of having a penis in your arse?
I'm not sure, but also I don't think (m)/any animal species are members that are exclusively homosexual (although I could be wrong).
Homosexuality is bound to be there, however I feel as a society accepting gays we have created a culture of gay people who would not be gay if it was frowned upon.
That's my take on it. Seems being gay is one of the popular things to do these days, as is being tolerable, when being hypocritical towards racists; this is shown a lot within so-called anarchists today who frown upon national-anarchists such as myself.
My opinion is without the media pushing race-mixing and homosexuality it would be cut down a lot more.
As for sophia, nice job cutting off from your initial thread subject. I am not going to spend an awful long time refuting your points as far as race is concerned because I KNOW you're a troll (believe me, I know...not to mention the fact I did a wonderful job of it myself on zoklet). So I will just leave you with some reading material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X (brain size and intelligence)
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf
http://www.eugenics.net/
http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Racial%20Clusters
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005/12/aaa-statement-on-race.html (refuting AAA's statement on race)
http://racialreality.110mb.com/skincolor.html (shows skin color is not a reliable determiner of race...RACE =/= skin color)
http://racialreality.110mb.com/sicklecell.html (not a reliable determiner of black ancestry)
http://racialreality.110mb.com/genetics.html (population genetics)
http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/ (good site on understanding genes)
http://racialreality.110mb.com/hispanics.html (no such thing as hispanic/latino race)
http://www.tarver-genealogy.net/aids/spanish/sp_racial_terms.html (List of names given to different Hispanic hybrids)
White supremacy has been so overused that it's now a buzzword; but it doesn't make a difference what I say I am (I'm happy with the label racist or racial separatist
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news191502142.html
Now, back to women.
It was thought that women were inferior to men in every area of life, including intellectually. The justification was because the bible said Eve was created to be Adam's servant and that all of the sin in the world could be blamed on her. It wasn't until the scientific reasoning of physical anthropology and sociobiology that we started to learn the true nature of gender differences -which mainly lie in physical differences. The main scientific researchers who have studied race (Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson) also stuied gender differences; they found only a 3 point average difference in IQ.
Women have proven themselves time and time again to be strong warriors not to metion great intelligence gatherers. I thank my luck that where there are useless white men there are plenty of white women willing to fill the gap in fighting for our survival.
Yeah, like cripples. If God had meant us to live in chairs, he would have given us wheels. I mean, I don't have any problem with people living in wheelchairs, as long as they have the common decency to hide themselves away, you know? I don't want to be touched by their dirty fucking wheels.
As I said I have nothing against homosexuality; my wife even has a gay friend (no wai) who I converse with regularly.
I do however, have a problem with gay parenting. And not just because of the impact on their children, but also because of the implications it has on society.
How hard?
The implications are that if you allow gays to become parents then you're allowing anything other then the traditional family unit. Where I live the government is too scared to define a family as a mother and a father and as such gays, single parents and a even single adoptive/ivf parent is a family.
20 or 30 years ago being any of these was heavily frowned upon to the point where there just wasn't (m)any. Now days where I live (New Zealand) single motherhood is a huge problem, and because of this the state is forced to support this "immorality", where children are "looked after" by unfit parents who can't keep a relationship. Having a baby is akin to an 18 year holiday for some. I don't even hate it, I just don't want to live in a world where my children don't have to be a minority because they have two married parents. Gay parenting is not normal (because they can't naturally have children). And neither is single parenting. Obviously there are exceptions to single parents (specifically widow/widower). However again I don't say natural I say normal.
Apart from that I think being born into "rebellion" is only bad for a child. When you're parents aren't deemed "normal", you're an outsider living with your parents "abnormality". (Especially when they're fighting the "gay war"). Even considering there are many difference children find between each other, a child of a homosexual will almost always feel different because they are. I've spoken with a few children of homosexuals (which isn't a very large sample obviously). They were all ashamed TBH; I know of one who killed himself over it (and there were very few who knew) however again I understand this is a very small sample and I'm not basing my decisions on one person I knew. All I say is don't force your lifestyle onto a child.
Of course there are normal children parented by homosexuals, however that doesn't deteit from the fact that behavior judged immoral is becoming normal leaves the question of where does that leave our future? You might not be Christian but our moral system (society) is basically based on the Christian model. Don't kill, don't steal, treat your neighbour well, do unto others etc. We are becoming a society in which values are meaning less and less.
The way this relates to the OT is that a few decades ago males provided for their families and the woman looked after them. That's what the man did and IMO you're not a man if you can't do that. Neither is less important than the former, but they are both integral.
I think you're saying that the only people breading have infavorable traits?
I'm not going to go even more off topic with discussion about biology.
Not wrong, unnatural, as in its not suppose to happen in biological nature, I have no problem what so ever with homosexuals or them having the same rights as heterosexuals, but I do believe that homosexuality is a genetic impossibility or ad minimum a mutation. I do not believe that one is born gay, I do not believe therefore that it is a choice either, I think it is a form of acute mental disorder.
I'm not saying homosexuals are retards either, but that looking at another person of the same sex and feeling arousal is a malfunction of perception and consciousness, not controlled by the person, but also not genetic. Much like elderly onset Paranoia.
Sue me.
Men and women are a team, they are in union and would not exist without union. There is no competition between them, that's just a silly game some people play.
Sexuality is a preference. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' preference, it's all a sliding spectrum. Some people like men, some people like women.
Eventually, you may realize that you are not a separate individual, but you are the whole picture. Every gender, every sexual preference, it's all the same living breathing thing and that is what you are.
As for the homosexuality part, ^^This.
And for homosexuals raising children (and single moms etc.) I think that even some heterosexual couples aren't fit to raise children. If a homosexual couple or single mother can provide a stable loving environment for a child, then they can do more then a lot of heterosexual couples can. I wish there was a way that people could be tested (their parenting skills) and have to fit to a certain criteria to have children but this isn't realistic.
I do agree some hetrosexuals couples aren't good parents, just like there are gay parents who would make/are good parents.
This is kind of my view. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258349/Same-sex-parents-bad-children-contact-adults-genders.html
It is a mistake to think that expressed traits (phenotype) correspond directly with a singular gene (genotype). My understanding is that this is not how our encoded programming (genetics) work i.e. everything is causally determined in a single way. For example, the occurence that we give the name "homosexuality" may or may not be influenced by genetics. If it is, I am extremely skeptical that this would be the result of a singular causal gene.
Slavic is a linguistic category, it has to do with language. Mexico and Spain are states. That means the persons of these countries are "people" or "citizens". "Hispanic" is basically a failed attempt by popular (anglocentric) culture to make identifications, just as "Latin" America doesn't speak Latin at all, and is hence redundant.
Kay.
Appeals to tradition, nice. Why be batty for tradition, what is so glorious about tradition? If we open our eyes to the world (our planet), and all the species of life which it contains, you will see that the belief in a "traditional family unit" is an illusion. Even if we are anthropocentric, and focus solely on human beings, there is no one "traditional family unit". Even if we focus on anglocentric (aka "western") situations, we are still pushing the boundry between reality and fantasy. The raw fact is that not everyone was born, raised and/or lives within a nuclear family.
The nuclear family is associated with individualism. In the face of oncoming collectivism, the traditional nuclear family, the so-called "unit" is coming under attack, as it is faced with it's selfish individuation in a connected, collective reality. Notalgia and romanticism are very compelling emotive rationalizations to be batty for tradition, but nostelgia & romanticism can only be pretend justifications. The raw fact is the our world, and the wider world (cosmos) is all one family. Therefore any step away from this traditional "seperatist" view, is a step backward from illusion, bringing us closer to reality & truth.
Like I say, the world is one family. To presume that mother & father, or parents of any kind for that matter, are the overarching or total influence upon a childs life, well it's just plain bat shit. On that basis, the argument from "balance" i.e. heterosexual parentage provides balance through offering both masculine & feminine influences, is made redundant.
That is because our world is filled with males and females, filled with men and women, filled with masculinity & femininity. This is true independantly of who or how many parents you have. We can all learn from each other, and we should. It is not only our parents from whom we should learn. Infact, if our parents are evil, inauspicious or abusive, we should disassociate from them. Abandon your "family" and embrace the world; then you will know what true family is!
What difference does it make? Twenty years ago or thirty years ago? 5000 years ago, no areoplanes, shall we cease aireal travel? 50,000 years ago, no society, shall we go live in the bush? Hey! Twenty billion years ago our planet was yet to be concieved, shall we stick with traditionalism and be batty for time, and annihilate this planet? Do you see the loophole in trying to connect time & tradition with rightousness and ethical practice? Your clearly a person of old age.
Why should we keep a relationship? Relationship means vehicle in which relation occurs, in which we relate to each other. This means we are connected in some way. The idea that association needs to be maintained no matter what is rediculous. Some good examples that demonstrate this are abusive relationships i.e. one in which domestic violence occurs.
Our goal should not be maintainence of relationships, that should not be our highest priority. The highest priority is to be discerning; to be actively engaged and contemplative. I think it's funny that you think all children are concieved at the time of "relationship", although that would be ideal.
PROTIP: We are all minor in some regard or aspect; that is a fact!
Gay parenting is not the norm. It is not the prevailing archetype. Is it right to judge validity based on statistics i.e. "this happens 80% of the time, which means it is major; majority is right". That thought process lacks discernment.
Hell yes, the sex act requires both male and female. However, parenting and sex acting are not the same thing. Quality of parenthood is not measured according to how "good" a couple is in bed, any child will vouch for this. They are not two seperate occurences, but they are not nessecarily dependent.
a) Sex act
b) Gestation
c) Childbirth
d) Parenthood
These four occurences are related. However, make note of d) parenthood. Parenthood is meaning having some juristiction or dominion over a child. Parent is not nessecarily having to be mother or father, infact these terms or names are relative to our anglocentric individualistic cultures. In many collectivist cultures (i.e. some North American inuit clans) children are raised by the community, and there is often slim to no identification with the "biological parent" as having dominion.
In my oppinion this is symptomatic of a wisdom much of the anglocentric elderly are ignorant of. Many "parents" are delluded by their culture, and are convinced because a child came from their lions, so to speak, that this gives them dominion, control, or even ownership of the child. This is fucking bogus. This is understandable though, let's say in a world with a minimal population within a "state of nature". With a vast population within a "state of society" we have the capability of being communistic and acknowledge our connectedness, but for some reason we do not. I guess it is too jurastic a change, so we must use this primordial "traditional" seperatist understanding of family.
If you can't come to terms with abnormality & normality, what hope do our children have? Must we be animals and only do what we see done? Unthinking imitation & emulation; is that our supremacy?
Again:
Shall we make everything homogenous & hegemonic in the hope that things will be peaceful? Is it a crime to feel different, to be different? Shall we eliminate distinction between salary and offer only one kind of income to all, so as to prevent difference? We can't all be equal, we are not all equal, we are unique! Let's not pretend! Our society (I'm also from New Zealand) of thirty years ago sounds like a pretend society. I piss on tradition with pride.
Anecdotal evidence =/= absolute truth. We cannot help but influence children with our lifestyles as a collective, that's just how shit goes (we imitate/emulate). Obviously influence and force are different, but in what way. For instance, if a child is gay (or you could say thinks they are gay), and the parent/(s) condemns this, is this counted as forcing lifestyle? Some would say this is mere influence, I would say by ommission this is force; it is coercion.
If a child commits suicide and has homosexual parents, does that mean the parents are the cause? If my parents eat cake, and I commit suicide, must we blame my parents cake eating habit? Who is to blame, and who should feel shame, when the child commits suicide because he has homosexual parents? The homosexuals, or the homophobes?
My patient wears thin with yer conservative vommit. Your not religious at all, but you're making appeals to popular religion? When we speak to each other, we can speak of our society, and to a lesser extend culture, without specifics. However, the quote above basically reads "The world is based on Christianity". Why? Because you did not specify whose moral system or what society, you simply said "our", which means everyone. You speak of "we" and "society", but who are you refering to? Just New Zealand? Most people here aren't from New Zealand. Just english speaking (anglocentric) societies? Not everyone within this forums fits into that category. Societies with a Gregorian calender?
You do understand Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morality right?
All quotes are from the Tao Te Ching.
I endorse this message. Within the human species alone there are many genders already, especially if we are looking cross-culturally i.e. as expressed in all the world's languages. It is just that our primitive language struggles to articulate a world beyond two genders, because there are only two sexes. My understanding of gender is akin to "personality".
There is an example of Bugis culture in Indonesia for instance, in which there are five common genders. There is man and women, or conservative male and conservative female. There is calalai, which we might give the name "homosexual male", calabai, which we might give the name "homosexual women", and bissu, which we might give the name "transgender", "hermaphrodite", "asexual" or "androgynous".