|
undergroundsea -> RE: female Supremecy (1/1/2010 2:10:30 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
don't we usually start with experiences and studies to build a belief or support an argument?
What I am questioning is whether experiences and studies have been used correctly to build a belief or support an argument.
quote:
I think it's fair to say I've sketched that out fairly enough by now.
You cite some statistics, and have comments about using statistics alongside a general belief in female superiority. You said cerebral data can draw upon statistics and asked whether this idea was valid with no context of which statistic you mean. To answer and to assess whether your observation logically follows from the statistics, and whether you have applied critical thinking while evaluating data, I asked for the specific statistic and hypothesis. Your current response does not provide useful information.
quote:
Really? Please prove the flawed reasoning here. The purpose of the example was to show that protection of the Female is present on a social level—that keeping Women safe is an inherent biological trait, and that males are considered more expendable. Do you question the greater expendability of males?
Protection of society is present on a social level. It is why elderly and children are also protected. I will spend more time discussing the flawed reasoning after you explain why children and elderly are protected by men, and why with time more women have moved into roles, law enforcement for example, where they protect society, a point I raised when you first raised this matter.
quote:
On the surface, this seems like a valid thing to say until you study history a little deeper. Mary Stuart was very close to the strict Catholic orthodox, and consequently, King Phillip II of Spain, making her little more than an instrument of an old institution to regain influence over the English crown. You also forget that historians believe Elizabeth may have been tricked into signing Mary's beheading.
Regardless of how Mary's ascendance to the throne might have helped others, she also wanted the throne. Regardless of whether others exaggerated the threat posed by Mary to Elizabeth, when Elizabeth felt a threat to her power she sought violence to neutralize it. Before signing the execution warrant, Elizabeth asked two men if they would kill Mary so as to eliminate Mary without any political fallout that signing the execution warrant might have caused. It was indeed politics and power at work, and is a counterexample to your claim.
quote:
Could you provide data to support this comparison? I'd be curious to see how it compares with dialog about the differences between sexes, which are verifiable genetically and behaviorally.
I am uninterested to find and reproduce the arguments of racist groups here and suggest you find them yourself.
quote:
BDSM has been declassified as an outright paraphilia in DSM last time I checked, so I'm not certain why college courses would be teaching such a thing so absolutely without pathological context.
Consult Masters and Johnson textbook titled Our Sexuality.
quote:
As for the Australian study, I've never heard of it.
For details see this site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18331257
quote:
All that aside, what do sadomasochistic leanings and practices have to do with my belief in FS, anyway? The point has already been made that "Female is better" extends beyond Collarme and Fetlife forums, and their associated lifestyles.
You argued that because some believe in female superiority, it must be a fact of nature and there must be a force of nature causing this belief. I challenged this argument by saying there are larger populations who hold a different belief, and said that those who believe in FS within BDSM represent a small portion of the population, as do those who believe in FS outside of BDSM. SM leanings and practices have to do with your belief in FS because of the argument you made to justify FS.
quote:
Seeing as how this comment is based upon supposition, it's hard to seriously argue for either side, unless you can provide objective data to support your belief, above latter point withstanding, of course.
I can easily provide data. First, I want to get a sense for how much we are living in the same world. Do you believe that Fm numbers are greater than Mf numbers based on what you see on BDSM sites, and in BDSM communities?
quote:
ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
So at first you want to consider cultural influences and subtle nuanced contextual details regarding the statistics involving male violence, but here you'd like to sample and average your calculations without context to cultural influences, which is perfectly fine, so long as you admit you're doing nothing more than estimating.
So for something like violence you ignore cultural influences and put faith in statistics, but when I speak of statistics about those into FS, you speak of cultural influences and unreliability of statistical data?
I have given my reasoning for what puts to question your interpretation of statistics and which factors you overlook. You are welcome to give reasoning for why you think my proposed use of statistics is flawed.
quote:
Roughly 80 functioning genes vs. over a thousand? Perhaps you tell me.
Perhaps instead I should tell you this is the type of vague response I see when I ask someone who makes hand waving arguments to explain more specifically. I do not know specifically what the effect is of the smaller number of genes in this case. If you don't know the answer fair enough. But if you do not know, then do not present this point as an argument.
quote:
And yet you seem in agreement with me that overall, males are more violent, give or take cultural influences.
I am in agreement that statistics show that males are more likely to commit physical aggression. Where I disagree is what all leads to this difference. The matter goes beyond cultural differences. And I direct various points at you that put to question your interpretation and assessment of the data, including a question about why the source you cite says men are more likely to commit physical aggression and women are more likely to commit psychological aggression.
quote:
Again, where is synergy absent in a Female-led relationship based upon Female Supremacy? It's not as if even in the most idealized FS environment males are absent from the world, unneeded or unused. I can say the same about male supremacy ideals as well, in fact. Synergy doesn't have simply one face, from the way I look at it.
Leadership roles in society by one sex only, or leadership defined by one's sex versus one's merits does not have the synergy that one would see in leadership roles in society by both sexes, and leadership based on one's individual traits.
I have explained why an egalitarian relationship is more conducive for synergy, which you acknowledge in your post 88. What you present as characteristics of FS are not specifically characteristic of FS but of any good relationship, which can exist across any type of dynamic. The type of synergy from a good relationship you describe can also exist in MS relationships. Thus, your suggestion that these characteristics or synergy are a direct or necessary result of FS in invalid. Furthermore, some FS interpretations that consider men good for labor only specifically go against that that creates this synergy.
That is where the synergy is absent.
Cheers,
Sea
|
|
|
|
