Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminism and Men's Rights Explained

jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

How could feminism or feminists even exist if women were rule-following, conformist, risk averse, and nonviolent?

How could females be subservient as a rule when even currently accepted human history documents a long list of strong female leaders and rulers?

I love coddling women. They're just so pretty and delicious. But, women don't respond well to being coddled. So, given that's a reality you perceive as even existing, and take it as far as being "obvious," reveals a lack of experience in dealing with women. That's not meant to be an ad hom, because there's nothing wrong with that. But, it does appear to be the case nonetheless.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:00:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 2:26:38 PM, Such wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

How could feminism or feminists even exist if women were rule-following, conformist, risk averse, and nonviolent?

First off, women only are, on average, more likely to have those characteristics. Some women (who by no coincidence tend to be more masculine) and men started the feminist movement and a lot of women, being the conformist and rule following, did as the feminist leaders said. Of course, other women, most in fact, are not feminists.


How could females be subservient as a rule when even currently accepted human history documents a long list of strong female leaders and rulers?

That list is dwarfed by the dramatically longer list of strong male leaders. Again, we are talking about averages here.


I love coddling women. They're just so pretty and delicious. But, women don't respond well to being coddled. So, given that's a reality you perceive as even existing, and take it as far as being "obvious," reveals a lack of experience in dealing with women. That's not meant to be an ad hom, because there's nothing wrong with that. But, it does appear to be the case nonetheless.

Where did you get the idea that women don't like being coddled?

If this were the case, we would not expect women to be attracted to men with high incomes. Or, in less developed and more violent societies, we would not expect women to like the most physically dominant males. Of course, we know women DO, in fact, tend to go for these guys. It is no coincidence that these guys are the most capable of coddling said women.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

On what grounds do you state these claims?

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

Biologically speaking; please provide some evidence supporting your claims.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:16:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:08:48 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

On what grounds do you state these claims?

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

Biologically speaking; please provide some evidence supporting your claims.

Okay. For one, every human society, throughout history, has been male dominated. The fact that men are most of the prisoners, warrior, CEOs, politicians, etc and women are most of the teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc suggests that men are more violent but also more nonconformist and leadership. Women are more caring and nurturing, and they tend to follow rules more.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:41:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:16:33 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:08:48 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

On what grounds do you state these claims?

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

Biologically speaking; please provide some evidence supporting your claims.



Okay. For one, every human society, throughout history, has been male dominated. The fact that men are most of the prisoners, warrior, CEOs, politicians, etc and women are most of the teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc suggests that men are more violent but also more nonconformist and leadership. Women are more caring and nurturing, and they tend to follow rules more.

I see why your using a historical example but Biologically do you have any evidence to support these claims. You're saying that since men are leading in the world and since he have a patriarchal structure that has been reaffirmed throughout history that this has to mean that women are inherently subservient to men and thus have the characteristics that you are saying? Because all I'm seeing are claims and no scientific evidence and faulty logic.

For example using this same logic, the reason that black people aren't in the leading roles of per say america would be because they are inherently a certain set of characteristics due to others leading in various fields. This would apply to any minority etc.

Are you saying this?
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.

This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:52:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:41:27 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:16:33 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:08:48 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

On what grounds do you state these claims?

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

Biologically speaking; please provide some evidence supporting your claims.



Okay. For one, every human society, throughout history, has been male dominated. The fact that men are most of the prisoners, warrior, CEOs, politicians, etc and women are most of the teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc suggests that men are more violent but also more nonconformist and leadership. Women are more caring and nurturing, and they tend to follow rules more.

I see why your using a historical example but Biologically do you have any evidence to support these claims. You're saying that since men are leading in the world and since he have a patriarchal structure that has been reaffirmed throughout history that this has to mean that women are inherently subservient to men and thus have the characteristics that you are saying? Because all I'm seeing are claims and no scientific evidence and faulty logic.

There is scientific evidence for it. But, for one second, occams razor suggests the most simple explanation is usually correct. This is much more simple than a mass patriarchal conspiracy.


For example using this same logic, the reason that black people aren't in the leading roles of per say america would be because they are inherently a certain set of characteristics due to others leading in various fields. This would apply to any minority etc.

Are you saying this?

Absolutely. It is a fact that black people have some characteristics that, on average, differentiate them from whites.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?

You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.

Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you have any substantive evidence to prove any of the claims you have stated other that your personal beliefs.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:23:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:21:15 PM, AFism wrote:
This is what I'm trying to get OP to realize thank you.
@Sircona
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.

As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@jimtimmy4

I just want you to see that you are making nothing but claims. I want you to see that even if you take what you see to be fact you are disregarding free will, or the fact that there are different personalities etc. So lets say that your opinion is right. Does this now mean that regardless of your personality, your thinking and how you are reared you are inherently subservient to men? I want you to think of the nature vs. nurture debate and find evidence to support all of these things. If you find it hard to find evidence proving that biologically and physiologically men and women are inherently different then maybe you should rethink your stance. You should explore the relationship between the mind and the body. Explore arguments like mind over matter. Question how is biology and success related in our society. Is it really biology? Or, is it the perception of bodies, the long history of the objectification and stigma attached to certain bodies. Are there any other factors that contribute to the overrepresentation of men in society, especially white men in society. Because there are many reasons that contribute to this. Think about how race, class and gender operate as social constructions in this society. Pose more questions! If masculinity and femininity did not exist, what things would change?

My whole point in saying this is, do more research and expand more on your thinking, and maybe you'll realize somethings about yourself and your position.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


: As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

By the way using this same logic thats basically saying how you are portrayed defines you and is the truth because you are talking about representation.

I just want you to see the claims and assumptions that you are making that is all
I also want you to explore more terms relating to your subject. What is identity and what role does this play when it comes to the representation of men and women in society.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:53:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.

First off. How is that none?

The vast majority of leaders being men is strong evidence of men being more leadership prone. Yes, you have alternative explanation about culture causing this. This begs the question: WHY would culture cause this?

Culture and stereotypes don't pop out of thin air. They come from something. In this case, men happen to be, biologically, the leadership sex historically. Because of this, a culture in which men are dominant arose.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:56:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:53:42 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.


First off. How is that none?

The vast majority of leaders being men is strong evidence of men being more leadership prone. Yes, you have alternative explanation about culture causing this. This begs the question: WHY would culture cause this?

Culture and stereotypes don't pop out of thin air. They come from something. In this case, men happen to be, biologically, the leadership sex historically. Because of this, a culture in which men are dominant arose.

And you have evidence for this as well, I take it?
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:56:38 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:53:42 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.


First off. How is that none?

The vast majority of leaders being men is strong evidence of men being more leadership prone. Yes, you have alternative explanation about culture causing this. This begs the question: WHY would culture cause this?

Culture and stereotypes don't pop out of thin air. They come from something. In this case, men happen to be, biologically, the leadership sex historically. Because of this, a culture in which men are dominant arose.

And you have evidence for this as well, I take it?

Yes. The fact that we have a culture where men are dominant suggests that, you know, men are dominant. But, a more in depth case given here:

http://www.amazon.com...

It's a book. The author responds to critics here:

http://www.debunker.com...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:00:33 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:56:38 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:53:42 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.


First off. How is that none?

The vast majority of leaders being men is strong evidence of men being more leadership prone. Yes, you have alternative explanation about culture causing this. This begs the question: WHY would culture cause this?

Culture and stereotypes don't pop out of thin air. They come from something. In this case, men happen to be, biologically, the leadership sex historically. Because of this, a culture in which men are dominant arose.

And you have evidence for this as well, I take it?


Yes. The fact that we have a culture where men are dominant suggests that, you know, men are dominant. But, a more in depth case given here:

http://www.amazon.com...


It's a book. The author responds to critics here:

http://www.debunker.com...

I am sorry to say this but you are making statements that you are trying to pass off as fact but are actually THEORY, which is why you are grappling to support your claims and used a book that states a theory and perception rather that substantive, scientific fact or logic.
I highly suggest that you read my paragraph that I directed to you for I am troubled at how narrow minded you are.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:00:33 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:56:38 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:53:42 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:46:52 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:41:17 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:31:34 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:22 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:18:06 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:10:07 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:03:58 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:50:31 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:46:44 PM, SirCrona wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.
[Citation needed]

Pseudo psychology and throwing words like "Evolutionary" around won't make you automatically correct. "Leadership sex?" "Nonconformist sex?" Evidence suggests that most early humans were extremely conformist. They had to be; It was the most advantageous way for such an intelligent species to survive in their herd configuration. If you want to get technical, leadership was most common among women, as they had and raised children, so they would tend to end up highly positioned in the group.

Of course, the REAL reason that men are "overrepresented" (that is not even a word.) among leadership roles and prison population is because of the remnant of a culture that discouraged women from doing anything other than being submissive mothers and wives, and made men who felt like they were inept turn to crime.


This is total nonsense. Men are dominant because they are, biologically, the more competitive sex. The idea that men are only overrepresented because of social constructs is absurd.

I've come to expect argument from incredulity from people who try and justify sexism, but calling facts nonsense? I mean, I get that the assertion of cultural causes to male dominance is still a matter of debate, but come on, I refuted your idea of "biological dominance" with nothing but anthropology 101. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions?


You refuted it?

No. Not even a little bit. You didn't even get close to anything near a refutation. I don't know how you got this idea.

Men are not the "Leadership" nor the "Nonconformist" sex. Evidence suggests that humans are predetermined to be conformist and that women (at least, during caveman times) were the "leadership sex" if you can call it that, as they only got to be leaders because they were maternal figures. Now I suggest you quit attacking my position and give your own some evidential backup, because at this point refuting it is redundant as it has no legs to stand on without evidence.


Yes. Humans are conformist. But, men are LESS conformist than women. And, there is literally NO evidence that women were EVER the leadership sex. They just weren't. If you have evidence that women were ever the leadership sex, please offer.

Gosh dang it, listen to my request! We need evidence for your assertion! We need logical reasoning and objective evidence, not just "Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex. Men are the leadership sex." Your argumentum ad nauseum is giving me some magnum head nauseum.


As I've said, the biggest piece of evidence of men being the leadership sex is men being the actual leaders.

So in other words you have none? I already explained that phenomenon, but you called my account "ridiculous." And why did you call it ridiculous? Because you said "Men are biologically more competitive." Prove ALL your unfounded assertions, not just the one that's the easiest to pull a defense for out from where the sun don't shine.


First off. How is that none?

The vast majority of leaders being men is strong evidence of men being more leadership prone. Yes, you have alternative explanation about culture causing this. This begs the question: WHY would culture cause this?

Culture and stereotypes don't pop out of thin air. They come from something. In this case, men happen to be, biologically, the leadership sex historically. Because of this, a culture in which men are dominant arose.

And you have evidence for this as well, I take it?


Yes. The fact that we have a culture where men are dominant suggests that, you know, men are dominant. But, a more in depth case given here:

http://www.amazon.com...


It's a book. The author responds to critics here:

http://www.debunker.com...

I can see that you're only going to use sexist pseudoscience to evident your theories. I'd tell you to not drink the kool-aid, but you've already downed a whole jug.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 9:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:00:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 2:26:38 PM, Such wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

How could feminism or feminists even exist if women were rule-following, conformist, risk averse, and nonviolent?



First off, women only are, on average, more likely to have those characteristics. Some women (who by no coincidence tend to be more masculine) and men started the feminist movement and a lot of women, being the conformist and rule following, did as the feminist leaders said. Of course, other women, most in fact, are not feminists.

This cannot be based on "average," because neither the average man nor average woman is nonconformist, violent, risk-taking, and unruly. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an inclination in any direction, which suggests that the imbalance is based on influences other than innate characteristics.

How could females be subservient as a rule when even currently accepted human history documents a long list of strong female leaders and rulers?



That list is dwarfed by the dramatically longer list of strong male leaders. Again, we are talking about averages here.

Once again, this cannot be talking about "averages," because neither the average man nor woman is a strong leader. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an inclination in any direction, which suggests that the imbalance is based on influences other than innate characteristics.

I love coddling women. They're just so pretty and delicious. But, women don't respond well to being coddled. So, given that's a reality you perceive as even existing, and take it as far as being "obvious," reveals a lack of experience in dealing with women. That's not meant to be an ad hom, because there's nothing wrong with that. But, it does appear to be the case nonetheless.



Where did you get the idea that women don't like being coddled?

From my personal experience and what I've heard and read from female speakers and writers. None of these people are representative of their entire genders, but it makes sense to acknowledge that when one approach doesn't work and one does, there are conclusions one can logically derive with some degree of rigorousness.

If this were the case, we would not expect women to be attracted to men with high incomes.

Women are not attracted to men with high incomes as a rule, although women are attracted to successful men, and a fair gauge of success, to some extent, is wealth.

I've never had a high income, but I've never had a problem with women, either.

Or, in less developed and more violent societies, we would not expect women to like the most physically dominant males. Of course, we know women DO, in fact, tend to go for these guys. It is no coincidence that these guys are the most capable of coddling said women.

First off, I don't know what physical dominance has to do with coddling. Sounds more like the opposite. But, what I will tell you is that women appreciate a male who is dominant in general when it comes to social or professional situations (although, not necessarily in terms of the relationship itself), because those men are better equipped to protect the both of them. Furthermore, women don't tend to find men who are physically or emotionally weak to be attractive -- that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with coddling, either.

Either way you look at it, you seem to be drawing conclusions based on a correlation-causation fallacy.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 11:24:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 9:45:43 AM, Such wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:00:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 2:26:38 PM, Such wrote:
At 2/5/2015 7:01:26 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
There are two ways to look at the history of gender status. The first, or the feminist way, is to look at the obvious reality of female subservience to dominant men. The second way, more associated with the men's rights movement, is to look at the just as obvious reality of male protection of coddled females. Both views are, of course, correct.

However, what feminists, in particular, (but also men's rights activists) miss is that these differences are rooted in an evolutionary past. This, and not some mass conspiracy, explains male dominance. Men are the leadership sex and the nonconformist sex. They are also the violent sex and the risk taking sex. Women, on the other hand, are the rule following sex and conformist sex. They are also more risk averse and less violent.

This is why men will always be overrepresented among both CEOs and prisoners, no matter how many feminists protest. It is simply rooted in biology.

How could feminism or feminists even exist if women were rule-following, conformist, risk averse, and nonviolent?


First off, women only are, on average, more likely to have those characteristics. Some women (who by no coincidence tend to be more masculine) and men started the feminist movement and a lot of women, being the conformist and rule following, did as the feminist leaders said. Of course, other women, most in fact, are not feminists.

This cannot be based on "average," because neither the average man nor average woman is nonconformist, violent, risk-taking, and unruly.

The Fool: Try these changes.

1. Add: the phrase "females" on average average in comparison to males on average.

2. Trade: nonviolent with preference for safety and stability, as opposed to risk and reward..

It's a fact that men are more risk-taking. That should be common sense, but it's often to get wealth and power, to get the girl. And in evolutionary terms" to reproduce successfully. And women have generally evolved in reciprocation. To be appealing, and attractive, Forcing the males to compete, making it so the smarter and stronger men reproduce more often, resulting in a stronger and smarter genetic pool, for human beings in general.

3. Trade: "unruly" for emotional. Emotions are passive, and tend to rule us, we control emotions with rationality. Women tend to be a more confirmative on average in comparison to men. They can be persuaded easier by emotional content. E.g. more likely to commit an appeal to emotion fallacy.

We could even see this difference in the general movements where the woman"s movement tends to be a collectivist social Marxist subjectivist movement in nature .

E.g. You can"t really be pro-life and be a feminist, or be a woman and disagree with the key tenets and feminist theory, without it being considered internalized misogyny and anti-feminism. It pushes a listen and believe our personal experiences agenda.

On the other hand the men"s human rights movement tends to be more individualistic, objective and libertarian leaning, but certainly not limited to this.

Such: Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an inclination in any direction, which suggests that the imbalance is based on influences other than innate characteristics.

The Fool: Lol.. Of course there is.. Pump somebody up with a bunch (Testosterone), and let's see if they start acting more masculine. The Y chromosome causes testosterone to release in the womb. This affects how the brain develops, and how it interacts after puberty, and it correlates with all these characteristics. Men have much testosterone than women. As men and women grow into old age they become more alike, because their sexual hormones decrease.

Not all bodies, respond to sexual hormones in the same way, and not all people are exposed to the same levels of sexual hormones in the womb, or produce the same amount in life, This explains some, if not most of the variation between masculine and feminine tendencies, which are genetic tendencies. Not all of it is genetic, but a lot of it is.

Does that mean we are deterministically confined to those traits? No, they can be conditioned to a certain extent, but there are limitations. Similarly we can all train to play basketball, but somebody who is tall is going to have advantages, or in feminist terminology, privileges, compared to somebody who is short. Although to learn how to play basketball is of course another privilege.

Toxic masculinity comes from the concept of testosterone toxicity, where feminist biologist would explain that the male brain is a female brain which has been damaged by testosterone. They consider masculinity as sickness. As a defect.. Of humanity. That's part of the justification for feminizing men., And so that only men need to be fixed, to be more like women. This is a general trend in feminism. And these are academic feminist.

Against Feminist Biology

That's why this is lean in feminism against masculinity and for femininity. That is to change the environment, in a way that it's more advantageous to femininity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 12:12:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: And don't you dare conflate what I am saying with what the rest that Jimmy is saying, and or other topics. I know you'd love to.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL