Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 12:56:17 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Funny that wikipedia has stricter guidelines for verifiable sources than most science magazines and such.


In a word: nonsense. You are either bizarrely misinformed or deliberately telling an outright lie in public. Either is inexcusable.

If you do not understand what "peer-reviewed" means, when accompanied by the word "journal", please stop talking about things about which you know nothing and clearly do not understand.

Edit: By the way, since you requested information on the history of shoddy and misleading brain science motivated by gender supremacy ideals:

Paul Broca, 1861. A French anatomist studying brain volume in human adults by filling the cranial vault of a corpse with lead shot. He discovers that the volume of the male brain is slightly higher than that of the female brain. "One wonders whether the smaller size of women's brains is due to the small size of their bodies. But let's keep in mind that women are, on average, slightly less intelligent than men. Therefore one can conclude that the smaller brain of women is explained by their inferiority in both size and intelligence."

Further brilliant deductions of Broca's studies? Brain mass is higher in whites than blacks, in "clever men than in ordinary ones", and in "superior races than in inferior ones".

Of course, the brain mass of a Neanderthal was higher than that of any modern human. They must have gone extinct by virtue of their sheer brilliance!

Delacoste and Holloway, 1982: A neuro-anatomical study of the corpus callosum triumphantly proves that this bundle of nerve fibers between the two hemispheres of the brain is thicker in women than in men! Coolah, coolay! This is "proof", clearly, that women are superior at coordinating information and "multi-tasking" than men, and clearly explains why they are able to organize both Little League events AND Girl Scout meetings while still picking out drapes that match the couch.

Unfortunately, this study was based on a very small sample size--less than 20 human brains--and in science, small sample always = badly biased conclusion. The media took off and ran with this "proof" about the human brain, but since that time thousands of brains have been studied and there is no consistent relationship between thickness of the corpus callosum and biological sex.

1985, Gerschwind and Galaburda: The theory of left and right brain specialization is offered to explain the "better" ability of women with language and the "better" ability of men with maths and spatial memory. New brain imaging tools, of course, now allow us to see the brain functioning, and have revealed that the two hemispheres of the brain NEVER work independently. At least ten different brain areas are devoted to language production, for example, in BOTH hemispheres. Do people stop babbling nonsense about "left-brain or right-brain dominance"? No. Hippies love this crap.

1991, Simon LeVay: Publishes a study comparing the brains of heterosexual men (presumed), heterosexual women (presumed), and homosexual men (proven). He found differences in the hypothalamus region of 1/10 of a millimeter between the "gay brain" and the "straight brain"--and did not hesitate to declare that he had discovered the evidence of biological difference in homosexual brain morphology.

Problem with his study? All of his homosexual subjects were men who had died of AIDS. Given that the virus may invade the brain and cause significant lesions, the comparison between infected and non-infected subjects might account for the difference just as easily as their gender preferences.

Hamer and friends, 1993: Hurray! We've found the gene for homosexuality! Oh wait, no we haven't--our "conclusions" are demolished and disproven within six years. But no worries, the media will never trumpet the proof of our failure as loudly as they trumpeted our "success", and people will go one believing in the "gay gene" for decades longer.

Kimura, 1999: Studies of performance in a series of standardized tests demonstrate that women are "generally better at languages" and men show "better performance at spatial orientation". This data is used to support deterministic recommendations that there is "no point" in encouraging women to study science and maths because their "natural" tendency is against it.

Problems with these studies? The deliberate evasion of known data about brain plasticity. These sex differences are detected in adolescence and not before--a strong argument in favor of socialization rather than biological difference, as the hormonal differences between male and female brains are established during the fetal stage. Further, the differences are always more marked in whites than in other ethnic communities--another strong marker of social rather than biological origin. Still worse, a compilation of psychological tests published in the last 20 years shows a progressive reduction in sex differences, which is directly correlated to women's increased integration into social and professional life!

By contrast, it has been proven that non-biological factors like profession have enormous impacts on the human brain. Brain imaging studies of a violinists in 1995 showed that the brain region controlling the left hand is much larger than the right, and the increase in brain surface is greater if the violinist had started to practice very early in life, as between the ages of 5-10. Studies on taxi drivers in 2000 showed an expansion of the brain regions that control spatial representation, and the increase in surface is proportional to the years of their experience.

In short, it's far less important what sex your brain is, and far MORE important how much you use it, and for what.

And now back to your regularly scheduled male supremacist pseudoscience.

< Message edited by ShaktiSama -- 3/4/2009 1:50:47 PM >

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 1:19:05 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
nonsense.... If you do not understand what "peer-reviewed" means, when accompanied by the word "journal", please stop talking about things about which you know nothing and clearly do not understand.

Do you know what peer review is?
 
Many scholarly journals use a process of peer review prior to publishing an article, whereby other scholars in the author's field or specialty critically assess a draft of the article. Peer-reviewed journals (also called refereed journals) are scholarly journals that only publish articles that have passed through this review process. The review process helps ensure that the published articles reflect solid scholarship in their fields. [ref]
 
In increasing numbers, scientists are reasoning that, if people are going to look at the Wikipedia page anyway, the scientific community should probably ensure that the information there is good. In the latest manifestation of this trend, the journal RNA Biology is requiring that authors of a specific type of paper submit a Wikipedia entry for peer review, as well. [ref]
 
K.
 
 

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 1:24:28 PM   
Asherdelampyr


Posts: 9556
Joined: 11/14/2006
From: The Desert
Status: offline 		It is all well and good to say that something is peer-reviewed, but with Wiki that just means that it can be instantly changed, and that if other people dont agree then there will be a bold area stating so
anyone can walk in off the street and edit any wikipedia entry... that can make it seem, less than reliable. In a lot of cases it is accurate, in some it isnt, and where it is boldly inaccurate it can take a while to be fixed.

_____________________________

Pirate King,

The nicest man you'll ever bleed for

Posting Help

Vitam Piratae Eligo

The Rainmaker

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 1:33:37 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

It is all well and good to say that something is peer-reviewed, but with Wiki that just means that it can be instantly changed, and that if other people dont agree then there will be a bold area stating so anyone can walk in off the street and edit any wikipedia entry... that can make it seem, less than reliable. In a lot of cases it is accurate, in some it isnt, and where it is boldly inaccurate it can take a while to be fixed.

That's very true. But the number and quality of the references in any given case speak for themselves. You have to assume a certain level of intelligence on the part of the reader. Those in whom that is lacking are always the first to dismiss something they don't like on the basis of where it was posted.
 
K.
 
 

(in reply to Asherdelampyr)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 2:09:54 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

That's very true. But the number and quality of the references in any given case speak for themselves. You have to assume a certain level of intelligence on the part of the reader. Those in whom that is lacking are always the first to dismiss something they don't like on the basis of where it was posted.
 
K.
 
 


My distaste for Wikipedia as an academic reference is based entirely on the fact that it is universally banned as a source for credible and accurate information by every academic institution on earth. The fact that some scientists are trying to make it less dangerously disreputable as a source of information for the general public does not change this fact, nor does it do anything to address the fact that Wikipedia is essentially an anarchic institution. Entries on any subject can be placed, edited and re-edited by anyone who chooses to consistently apply pressure to invent, distort or misrepresent facts--and this can be done anonymously and without consequences. The place is far too often a battleground of conflicting political, theological or ideological interests and it has NO accountability.

The majority of readers cannot tell by looking at a reference on Wikipedia whether the "scholarly" article being referenced, for example, was discredited within a decade and is now known to contain false or misleading conclusions. A peer reviewed journal, by contrast, will continually publish articles that challenge previously published data--that's part of the PROCESS of peer review, it's not just about a single group of people reading something once and putting a rubber stamp on it. When you publish an article, you have to meet certain standards of scientific rigor to even propose your information--but that's just the beginning of the process, not the end. Once you publish, the entire field of your peers are able to test your conclusions on their own time and publish challenges to it that meet the same standards of methodological rigor.

At any rate, I think I've wasted enough time on this thread. Arguing against people who think that their sexual fantasies have a scientific basis is useless. Feel free to take up that bottle of hand lotion and return to Wikipedia to have your puerile gender biases further verified. I have better things to do.

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 2:11:05 PM   
Asherdelampyr


Posts: 9556
Joined: 11/14/2006
From: The Desert
Status: offline 		Not if the references arent correct
I have run into this a lot with computer repair articles, they are just dead wrong, but people treat them like gospel anyway
I always look for at least two good sources before I consider any info as possibly true

_____________________________

Pirate King,

The nicest man you'll ever bleed for

Posting Help

Vitam Piratae Eligo

The Rainmaker

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 3:24:32 PM   
Honsoku


Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
My distaste for Wikipedia as an academic reference is based entirely on the fact that it is universally banned as a source for credible and accurate information by every academic institution on earth.


And the only reason for this had to be because the information was unreliable? Or could it be because in the early days, wikipedia had an anti-intellectual stance (which they have since reversed)? Could it also possibly be because such a source was, and still is, a threatening to the incestuous nature of academia? How many of those bad studies you listed earlier also passed peer review? Academia is not free from it's own problems when it comes to ideological blindness and errors in information.

Almost always, any new source or form is always criticized and shunned by the already established ones.

quote:

The fact that some scientists are trying to make it less dangerously disreputable as a source of information for the general public does not change this fact, nor does it do anything to address the fact that Wikipedia is essentially an anarchic institution. Entries on any subject can be placed, edited and re-edited by anyone who chooses to consistently apply pressure to invent, distort or misrepresent facts--and this can be done anonymously and without consequences. The place is far too often a battleground of conflicting political, theological or ideological interests and it has NO accountability.


Indeed, hot button subjects are prone to vandalism. Just like hot button issues in academia are prone to misleading and distorted studies. The fact that it can be changed by "by anyone who chooses to consistently apply pressure to invent, distort or misrepresent facts" is true for any source of information.

quote:

The majority of readers cannot tell by looking at a reference on Wikipedia whether the "scholarly" article being referenced, for example, was discredited within a decade and is now known to contain false or misleading conclusions.


You mean the peer reviewed journal was wrong? But they went through all that rigor and verification!

quote:

A peer reviewed journal, by contrast, will continually publish articles that challenge previously published data--that's part of the PROCESS of peer review, it's not just about a single group of people reading something once and putting a rubber stamp on it.


You mean they continually go back and revisit and update things like Wikipedia does? A Wikipedia article isn't set in stone, you said so yourself. In fact that was one of your big complaints against it.

quote:

When you publish an article, you have to meet certain standards of scientific rigor to even propose your information


No you don't. Anyone can submit an article for review. It probably won't get published if it doesn't pass a certain threshold, but anyone can propose.

quote:

--but that's just the beginning of the process, not the end. Once you publish, the entire field of your peers are able to test your conclusions on their own time and publish challenges to it that meet the same standards of methodological rigor.


Assuming the information can be tested and that they don't lie about the rigor (which happens).

quote:

At any rate, I think I've wasted enough time on this thread. Arguing against people who think that their sexual fantasies have a scientific basis is useless. Feel free to take up that bottle of hand lotion and return to Wikipedia to have your puerile gender biases further verified. I have better things to do.


Including spreading old and inaccurate information I assume. Pot meet kettle *grin*

Most people will decide what they want to believe first and find information to support it. Is there a statistical difference between male and female psychology? Probably. Will we be able to identify and isolate such a difference from external influences without throwing ethics out the window? Probably not. Will this argument go round and round for the next hundred years, with people being totally or partially oblivious on both sides? Almost certainly.

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 6:05:36 PM   
ShaktiSama


Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku

Almost always, any new source or form is always criticized and shunned by the already established ones.


Yes, especially when it offers the same credibility and accountability as a bathroom wall--one that 75,000 anonymous people have been writing on.

quote:

Indeed, hot button subjects are prone to vandalism. Just like hot button issues in academia are prone to misleading and distorted studies. The fact that it can be changed by "by anyone who chooses to consistently apply pressure to invent, distort or misrepresent facts" is true for any source of information.


Yes, but when this is done in publications that have some claim to credibility, people have to put their NAMES on their lies and distortions. And then they get to stand up to the scrutiny of their peers, and they can be discredited, lose their funding and tenure, and eventually their careers. They take REAL risks and suffer REAL consequences when they fabricate evidence, distort the facts and then get caught. They can throw away their entire lives if they aren't careful--it takes the average person at least eight years to get a phD, and those years don't come cheap. Depending on how venal and pernicious their intellectual dishonesty is, a person can be drummed out of a profession if they push it too far--so they have every reason, professionally and personally, to do honest and reputable work that they can put their names on without fear.

People who write and alter Wikipedia articles are anonymous volunteers. They gain no real benefits for being right and suffer no real consequence for being wrong--nor even for pumping out lies, fabrications, distortions and half-truths. This is why the majority of large corporations had PR personnel altering the entries for their companies and their various historical faux pas constantly--they were able to keep this fund of public information "spinning" the way they wanted it to, for the first several years of its existence, by constantly creating and re-creating "false consensus".

Journalism has a somewhat different method of assuring credibility in its news coverage, but even newspapers and magazines are far superior to Wikipedia, in the sense that the biases of individuals and corporations are far easier to identify and isolate. Any institution that requires a "sock puppet policy" and defines 20 different types of vandalism of its articles cannot be regarded as trustworthy. I'm sorry that you think this is somehow about "elitism"--it's really a simple matter of common sense.

quote:


You mean the peer reviewed journal was wrong? But they went through all that rigor and verification!


Having a phD, the training to gather and analyze evidence competently and the best of intentions does not mean that you will always be correct. It just means that you will earn the right to be heard and then questioned by your peers, and that you will have to live and die by what you publish.

quote:


You mean they continually go back and revisit and update things like Wikipedia does?


No. They don't "update" OR edit things anonymously, or partially, or after-the-fact. They publish new material in a new issue, by the same author or a new author, re-open the floor, question the original findings and sometimes REFUTE things on a point-by-point, partial or complete basis. It is an entirely different and much, much less deceptive process than the means by which Wikipedia entries are generated and edited--and far less subject to abuse. And once again, there are names and dates on everything; it's not hard to find the latest information on a subject and track down the person who did the work, check his/her methodology and evidence, or re-attempt the experiment yourself.

I'm amazed that so many people who seem so unctuously certain that they know everything there is to know about Wikipedia are so ignorant of its publicly admitted failings, and so unclear on the differences between an open source project and other sources of information. Regardless, however, this is a very large and very useless digression. I will let this argument go.

< Message edited by ShaktiSama -- 3/4/2009 6:38:25 PM >

_____________________________

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

(in reply to Honsoku)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 6:26:37 PM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

well it isn't a heightened propensity for ritualism in males, in fact the Sepik of new guinea acknowledge that women are FAR more spiritually powerful than they are which is the primary reason why they attempt to keep women in a lower status.
the sepik have a legend that long, long ago, women held all the ceremonial objects. a group of men decided they wanted to be in control and used aggression and fear to steal what rightfully belonged to the women. their insistence on gender-based dominance is an attempt to keep women from retaking their rightful place.
the sepik have a very interesting idea on that.

most cultures consider women VERY spiritually powerful because of the ability of childbirth. this is common from the maya to the aztec to the north american natives to africans, and all sorts of places in between. women seek out ritual with the same frequency as men, except in societies where they are literally forbidden to do so, by penalty of death.
in many societies, males maintain their power through blatant displays of a loss of belief in the right to life of their female counterparts.

that's not real dominance, at all. =p
And in some recent societies, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan, males show their superiority by inventing trumped-up "sins" and then taking innocent women to the soccer stadium in Kabul and shooting them in the head.
Spiritually powerful doesn't mean fuck-all when the women of a society enable such animalistic brutality.


the women aren't enabling.
they are so beaten down that they don't necessarily see another way. they are brought up believing that God made them "less than," and that the men have the divine right to do whatever they want with them, whether that's marry 4 of them (or more, even though the q'aran doesn't allow that) or kill 40 of them. and if they DO see something wrong with it, they're killed before they can do anything about it.
why do you point out an issue with the women, instead of pointing out the issue with the MEN who COMMIT the animalistic brutality?
i may be harping on a typo, but if it's NOT a typo, i think it highlights yet another thing that has always bothered me.

okay for example, there was a story on the news a few years ago about a girl who stayed out late with her boyfriend, and when she was put in trouble for violating the curfew, her boyfriend came back and killed her family. =p
someone i was talking to about it goes, "what was wrong with that girl? if she'd just listened to her parents, none of this would've happened!"
uh... what?
if her BOYfriend hadn't been a complete psychopath, he wouldn't have killed the family. =p
why is the girl the one who was in the wrong because she disobeyed? why didn't this person complain about the BOY who killed the family?

women are constantly blamed for somethign that they've done or enabled that somehow "permitted" the bad behavior of men.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 7:41:59 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherdelampyr

Not if the references arent correct

Even the best peer reviewed articles may report findings that later are reinterpreted or found to present an incomplete picture. Complaints of imperfection cannot conceal an absence of refutation.
 
K.
 
 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/4/2009 8:36:13 PM >

(in reply to Asherdelampyr)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 7:44:14 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

I think I've wasted enough time on this thread.... I have better things to do.

Apparently not much.
 
K.
 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/4/2009 7:53:41 PM >

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/4/2009 8:56:57 PM   
Honsoku


Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Yes, especially when it offers the same credibility and accountability as a bathroom wall--one that 75,000 anonymous people have been writing on.


Hence the more intensive use of citations and the moving away from their prior "anti-intellectual" stance.

quote:


Yes, but when this is done in publications that have some claim to credibility, people have to put their NAMES on their lies and distortions. And then they get to stand up to the scrutiny of their peers, and they can be discredited, lose their funding and tenure, and eventually their careers. They take REAL risks and suffer REAL consequences when they fabricate evidence, distort the facts and then get caught. They can throw away their entire lives if they aren't careful--it takes the average person at least eight years to get a phD, and those years don't come cheap. Depending on how venal and pernicious their intellectual dishonesty is, a person can be drummed out of a profession if they push it too far--so they have every reason, professionally and personally, to do honest and reputable work that they can put their names on without fear.


Another reason why Wikipedia now requires sources. The ability to be "drummed out" also has the negative counter effect of stifling new ideas because of the backlash it can bring. Having REAL consequences for disagreeing with the consensus does not encourage re-examining of popular ideas. This is a major problem with academia as it discourages intellectual honesty and progress. I notice that you do not address how many of the "bad" articles you pointed out also passed peer review. I have seen a blatantly false idea get perpetuated for decades in academia because it made the theories simple and elegant.

quote:

People who write and alter Wikipedia articles are anonymous volunteers. They gain no real benefits for being right and suffer no real consequence for being wrong--nor even for pumping out lies, fabrications, distortions and half-truths. This is why the majority of large corporations had PR personnel altering the entries for their companies and their various historical faux pas constantly--they were able to keep this fund of public information "spinning" the way they wanted it to, for the first several years of its existence, by constantly creating and re-creating "false consensus".


"For the first several years". Wikipedia is not the same as it was when it began. Hell, the PR people could have published their own pieces in magazines, or wrote their own books under pseudonyms, or "encouraged" some positive spin from others (and have!). The complaints you file against wikipedia are present for all information sources, hence they ring hollow.

quote:

Journalism has a somewhat different method of assuring credibility in its news coverage, but even newspapers and magazines are far superior to Wikipedia, in the sense that the biases of individuals and corporations are far easier to identify and isolate.


Considering some the crap that gets out on the AP wire, the news services aren't all that great either. The news cycle has gotten small enough that once it makes it out on the wire, it frequently does not get checked before it gets broadcast. I disagree with the assertion that the biases are easier to identify. That would require tracking an individual's work over time and in 99.9% of the instances, people don't do that. This also assumes that the information is being put out by a traceable name. Halfway decent intentional misinformation isn't done that way.

quote:

Any institution that requires a "sock puppet policy" and defines 20 different types of vandalism of its articles cannot be regarded as trustworthy. I'm sorry that you think this is somehow about "elitism"--it's really a simple matter of common sense.


That is a non-sequitur. Anything that's open to the public will have to deal with the random person's dickery. Your whole argument revolves around the idea that because it is open to the public, it isn't any good (anything that's open to the public is effectively anonymous). That is the definition of elitism.

quote:

Having a phD, the training to gather and analyze evidence competently and the best of intentions does not mean that you will always be correct. It just means that you will earn the right to be heard and then questioned by your peers, and that you will have to live and die by what you publish.


No, you live and die by what your peers and funders think of you. Not the same thing. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to gather and analyze evidence competently and with the best of intentions. The academics you revere are people as well, and as such are prone to all the human failings that everyone else has.

quote:

No. They don't "update" OR edit things anonymously, or partially, or after-the-fact. They publish new material in a new issue, by the same author or a new author, re-open the floor, question the original findings and sometimes REFUTE things on a point-by-point, partial or complete basis.


Which is what happens behind the curtain. You can check that by clicking on the "Discussion" and "History" links.

quote:

It is an entirely different and much, much less deceptive process than the means by which Wikipedia entries are generated and edited--and far less subject to abuse. And once again, there are names and dates on everything; it's not hard to find the latest information on a subject and track down the person who did the work, check his/her methodology and evidence, or re-attempt the experiment yourself.


Have you even been on Wikipedia remotely recently? The only major differences between with the academia you support and the Wikipedia that you deride, is the degree of anonymity and volume of people involved. Even the difference in anonymity is a bit specious as anyone can publish things under a pseudonym. If anything, Wikipedia has brought all the problems involved in academia into the public light. It has taken the mysticism and a lot of the air out of the intellectual. That is what intellectual elitists recoil against. It's the same crap you get around here when some of the pre-internet practitioners start griping about how much easier it is to practice BDSM these days. How people don't need invites anymore. How anyone can pick up a book, develop ideas, and participate in forums. The horror.

quote:

I'm amazed that so many people who seem so unctuously certain that they know everything there is to know about Wikipedia are so ignorant of its publicly admitted failings, and so unclear on the differences between an open source project and other sources of information.


And I'm equally amazed by how those who so voraciously put down Wikipedia turn such a blind eye to the failings and shortcomings of academia and the other sources they love. Academia and the other sources just don't publicly admit to their failings. The only real difference that can be made to stick is that the barrier to participate is lower. Is it too low? Perhaps. Is Wikipedia perfect? No, of course not. Academia isn't a shining beacon of truth and wisdom either. No source of information is.

quote:

Regardless, however, this is a very large and very useless digression. I will let this argument go.


A discussion is only useless if one side isn't listening

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/5/2009 12:59:47 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

well it isn't a heightened propensity for ritualism in males, in fact the Sepik of new guinea acknowledge that women are FAR more spiritually powerful than they are which is the primary reason why they attempt to keep women in a lower status.
the sepik have a legend that long, long ago, women held all the ceremonial objects. a group of men decided they wanted to be in control and used aggression and fear to steal what rightfully belonged to the women. their insistence on gender-based dominance is an attempt to keep women from retaking their rightful place.
the sepik have a very interesting idea on that.

most cultures consider women VERY spiritually powerful because of the ability of childbirth. this is common from the maya to the aztec to the north american natives to africans, and all sorts of places in between. women seek out ritual with the same frequency as men, except in societies where they are literally forbidden to do so, by penalty of death.
in many societies, males maintain their power through blatant displays of a loss of belief in the right to life of their female counterparts.

that's not real dominance, at all. =p
And in some recent societies, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan, males show their superiority by inventing trumped-up "sins" and then taking innocent women to the soccer stadium in Kabul and shooting them in the head.
Spiritually powerful doesn't mean fuck-all when the women of a society enable such animalistic brutality.


the women aren't enabling.
they are so beaten down that they don't necessarily see another way. they are brought up believing that God made them "less than," and that the men have the divine right to do whatever they want with them, whether that's marry 4 of them (or more, even though the q'aran doesn't allow that) or kill 40 of them. and if they DO see something wrong with it, they're killed before they can do anything about it.
why do you point out an issue with the women, instead of pointing out the issue with the MEN who COMMIT the animalistic brutality?
i may be harping on a typo, but if it's NOT a typo, i think it highlights yet another thing that has always bothered me.

okay for example, there was a story on the news a few years ago about a girl who stayed out late with her boyfriend, and when she was put in trouble for violating the curfew, her boyfriend came back and killed her family. =p
someone i was talking to about it goes, "what was wrong with that girl? if she'd just listened to her parents, none of this would've happened!"
uh... what?
if her BOYfriend hadn't been a complete psychopath, he wouldn't have killed the family. =p
why is the girl the one who was in the wrong because she disobeyed? why didn't this person complain about the BOY who killed the family?

women are constantly blamed for somethign that they've done or enabled that somehow "permitted" the bad behavior of men.
I absolutely see what you are saying. I didn't think the animalistic brutality of some of the males under Islam needed to be remarked upon; it is more than evident.
  "Enabling" doesn't convey what I was thinking, obviously. Women aren't totally powerless in certain Islamic cultures; they can absolutely rule the home, and therefore have tremendous influence over the rearing of male children. When males are not taught that is is abhorrent to kill for "honor", for instance, I see that as a form of, oh, co-dependence might be the best way to express what I am thinking. Male brutality doesn't happen in a vacuum.  I know this is a vast oversimplification, but I think that the failure of women to exert their influence over male children in the home amounts to tacit acceptance of the status quo.
  Am I making my thoughts clearer?

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/5/2009 2:18:57 AM   
VanessaChaland


Posts: 362
Joined: 11/23/2008
Status: offline 		Scholars used to think the world was flat, that AIDs was a gay disease and that the sun rotated around the planet Earth. So your point is,,,,,,?


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama




My distaste for Wikipedia as an academic reference is based entirely on the fact that it is universally banned as a source for credible and accurate information by every academic institution on earth. The fact that some scientists are trying to make it less dangerously disreputable as a source of information for the general public does not change this fact, nor does it do anything to address the fact that Wikipedia is essentially an anarchic institution. Entries on any subject can be placed, edited and re-edited by anyone who chooses to consistently apply pressure to invent, distort or misrepresent facts--and this can be done anonymously and without consequences. The place is far too often a battleground of conflicting political, theological or ideological interests and it has NO accountability.

The majority of readers cannot tell by looking at a reference on Wikipedia whether the "scholarly" article being referenced, for example, was discredited within a decade and is now known to contain false or misleading conclusions. A peer reviewed journal, by contrast, will continually publish articles that challenge previously published data--that's part of the PROCESS of peer review, it's not just about a single group of people reading something once and putting a rubber stamp on it. When you publish an article, you have to meet certain standards of scientific rigor to even propose your information--but that's just the beginning of the process, not the end. Once you publish, the entire field of your peers are able to test your conclusions on their own time and publish challenges to it that meet the same standards of methodological rigor.


(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/7/2009 7:59:42 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		fr

Well perhaps I stand enlightened. Is my attitude going to change ? Nobody knows but the dissenters here have put me into the position of reconsidering. I did take a narrow view of history and used it for the hypothesis.

The results were about as expected, some agree, some disagree and all the varying shades in between. Only one wants me dead as far as I can tell. So all is well.

If this thread does not fade into obscurity on page 114000022394857, I'll go through it and get more specific, but I am not joining the debate about wiki. This goes back to my policy of judging the source by the content, not the content by the source. That will never change and I will be here to stir the pot from time to time as it were.

Maybe I should start a poll,

[ ] I love Termy, he is off the wall enought to make people think outside the box
[ ] Termy needs to slow down, stirs the pot too much
[ ] Termy should shut the fuck up
[ ] Kill Termy

LOL

Matter like this are highly subjective in nature, I never expected everyone to agree. In fact perhaps I may have been questioning myself when I started this. However one must understand that almost nothing in my life was ever really normal. My Mother rose to be what some might call a captain of industry, she became head of the department and did well. Perhaps a big fish in a small pomd, but the pond was big enough to provide for her quite well and when retirement time came along they tried throwing money at her. Unfortunately for them she did not blow all her money and it it did not work. Now get this. She is one of the three Women I know who have their doubts as to whether it was a good idea to let Women vote. Ironic ? My whole life has been ironic. Just yesterday the olman was huffing and puffing over that long walk from the driveway to the house, about twenty feet. He put his oxygen on, I had to light his cigarette for him because we already know what can happen with a lighter and oxygen. You just don't know how different we are. But that is only illustrative in nature.

My whole life has been like that in one way or another.

That's my take on it this fine Saturday morning. I appreciate all the input, whether in agreement or not.

T

(in reply to VanessaChaland)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/7/2009 8:02:14 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		Comedy and tragedy are the 2 sides to life, Term.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/7/2009 8:35:20 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Oh Vend, well put. I got a DUI in Linndale in 2004, what do most people say ? "Haven't you learned by now ?  " not my family, it was "Why didn't you take I-176 and stay the fuck out of Linndale ?".

My life is so different I can't put it into words. It shows through to this day.

No matter what some may think of me, I wouldn't trade my life for any other. My wierdness exeeds kink by at least an order of magnitude.

One day if I just wrote a post about all my friends people would freak out, and we are talking here among foot lickers, ball crushers, skin cutters, and who knows what else. Maybe that's why I was destined for kink, and ergo here in the first place.

However that one that would like to see me dead, I would love to debate face to face. Civilly of course. My life has been filled with controversy and it's related strife, and now I would rather it be calm and collected, civile and logical. It was not that way years ago. I used to thrive on it, we were worse than anyone, I mean bad. I almost went postal on a bar for asking us to leave because our argument was loud and disturbing to other customers, we considered it normal conversation.

I have another comment but I am starting to think it deserves it's own thread, and by Jake we could use another one that is not political about now eh ? Because people don't realize that we just can't do anything about this mess right now, all we can do is try to get (or keep) ourselves together. Nobody is going to listen to us, at least not any more than they would listen to hudreds of millions of people. So sometimes I get sick of it.

T

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/7/2009 4:06:02 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		If you have a post that is not political please go for it!

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/11/2009 7:53:32 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Shaktisama

Having looked at several of your references on this thread, none of them appear to make use of the newest investigative techniques in brain research- i.e. fMRI.  Since anthropoligical techniques rely on inference based on behavior rather than direct measurement, I must admit, I find the methodology of fMRI (when used correctly of course) coupled with tasks to be persuasive.

Examples of current research are listed here:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.021

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544015

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2478638&blobtype=pdf

I highly recommend the last paper which is available online in its full text since there's a good discussion of previous papers failures to show developmental differences based on sex in children.  Of course, since this paper doesn't reinforce your fantasies of a male dominated scientific cabal bent on destroying your female supremacy utopia, you may choose to ignore it instead. 

And as an FYI- I have a Ph.D. and publications as well in bioinorganic chemistry.


Sam

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/11/2009 8:04:30 PM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

well it isn't a heightened propensity for ritualism in males, in fact the Sepik of new guinea acknowledge that women are FAR more spiritually powerful than they are which is the primary reason why they attempt to keep women in a lower status.
the sepik have a legend that long, long ago, women held all the ceremonial objects. a group of men decided they wanted to be in control and used aggression and fear to steal what rightfully belonged to the women. their insistence on gender-based dominance is an attempt to keep women from retaking their rightful place.
the sepik have a very interesting idea on that.

most cultures consider women VERY spiritually powerful because of the ability of childbirth. this is common from the maya to the aztec to the north american natives to africans, and all sorts of places in between. women seek out ritual with the same frequency as men, except in societies where they are literally forbidden to do so, by penalty of death.
in many societies, males maintain their power through blatant displays of a loss of belief in the right to life of their female counterparts.

that's not real dominance, at all. =p
And in some recent societies, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan, males show their superiority by inventing trumped-up "sins" and then taking innocent women to the soccer stadium in Kabul and shooting them in the head.
Spiritually powerful doesn't mean fuck-all when the women of a society enable such animalistic brutality.


the women aren't enabling.
they are so beaten down that they don't necessarily see another way. they are brought up believing that God made them "less than," and that the men have the divine right to do whatever they want with them, whether that's marry 4 of them (or more, even though the q'aran doesn't allow that) or kill 40 of them. and if they DO see something wrong with it, they're killed before they can do anything about it.
why do you point out an issue with the women, instead of pointing out the issue with the MEN who COMMIT the animalistic brutality?
i may be harping on a typo, but if it's NOT a typo, i think it highlights yet another thing that has always bothered me.

okay for example, there was a story on the news a few years ago about a girl who stayed out late with her boyfriend, and when she was put in trouble for violating the curfew, her boyfriend came back and killed her family. =p
someone i was talking to about it goes, "what was wrong with that girl? if she'd just listened to her parents, none of this would've happened!"
uh... what?
if her BOYfriend hadn't been a complete psychopath, he wouldn't have killed the family. =p
why is the girl the one who was in the wrong because she disobeyed? why didn't this person complain about the BOY who killed the family?

women are constantly blamed for somethign that they've done or enabled that somehow "permitted" the bad behavior of men.
I absolutely see what you are saying. I didn't think the animalistic brutality of some of the males under Islam needed to be remarked upon; it is more than evident.
"Enabling" doesn't convey what I was thinking, obviously. Women aren't totally powerless in certain Islamic cultures; they can absolutely rule the home, and therefore have tremendous influence over the rearing of male children. When males are not taught that is is abhorrent to kill for "honor", for instance, I see that as a form of, oh, co-dependence might be the best way to express what I am thinking. Male brutality doesn't happen in a vacuum.  I know this is a vast oversimplification, but I think that the failure of women to exert their influence over male children in the home amounts to tacit acceptance of the status quo.
Am I making my thoughts clearer?


not really. =p in most (not saying all) islamic countries, mothers are subordinate to their male children once the boys reach the age of either 10 or 12, can't remember exactly.
so they don't really have any power over them.
and if those boys grow up in a society that teaches that it IS okay to kill your sister/mother/whoever for "honor," then why on earth would they care what the sister/mother/whoever thought about it?
the justification is "well, just don't act up, and i won't have to kill you," not "i wonder if this is the best way to handle this." do you know what i mean?

NOT ALL islamic societies are like this. some of the more secular ones give women a bit more control, but it's not common. not as common as you seem to think.
they aren't failing to exert control when they believe they have no control at all.

anyway, i don't necessarily have a problem with sayign that there are real differences between the way males and females process things. however, in the abstract of the pubmedcentral.nih.gov article, it says that "sex differences were here identified in children (ages 9 - 15)", and socialization into gender roles has already began or fully occurred in this age group. it's generally accepted that kids "realize" their sex at a very early age (around 2, i think?), and socialization begins soon after
so this study probably isn't goign to say much about whether or not the thought differences are truly nature or if they're nurture, when kids ages 9 - 15 are already socialized into certain roles.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125