Definition of Sexism

[gorfias]

Which one is it?

I think those MRAs that want it 50-50 are in the wrong. You?

I feel compelled to point out that every time, every single stinking time we get around to equality and the draft, it's always the old conservative dudes who oppose an equal draft (and women in the military in general) while the feminist position is either "have women sign up for the draft" or, more popularly, "no draft at all"

So there's very much sexism perpetuated against men, both 8n this instance and in the "dangerous jobs" sense, and it's largely being perpetrated by men.

The patriarchy hurts all of us.

I usually get the response that there shouldn't be any war when asking why we have 95% male casualty rates and a male only draft. I think the stats are that more women oppose a draft for women than do men. And of course, on this, women are getting their way.
As @MrCalavera was noting above, I'd written some MRAs want to use Feminists own rhetoric on them. They currently act as if they are at a buffet table. If they see something they like that favors men, that is bigotry that must be changed: 50-50. Something positive that favors women? That's fine. Something where men are more likely to be harmed? That's fine too. Those MRAs are saying your aren't at a buffet table. You want 50-50 or its bigotry? Then EVERYTHING should be 50-50. I think simply pointing at a disparity and saying force of law must be used to make that thing 50-50 a bad idea that will in the end hurt everyone.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, aside from that CA law that sets an explicit quota for women, you have VAWA (which requires nondiscrimination but then also says that doesn't apply if you believe your program has to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender, but also requires funded programs to serve women) and Selective Service as big, obvious US federal examples that are nice and blatant. If I'm allowed to go internationally, incest had different requirements and penalties based on the sex of the perpetrator in Ireland until 2018, the UK still defines rape in a fashion that means that only men and trans women can possibly rape (the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator's penis), there's been a lot of argument over the last year regarding trying to make domestic violence law in the UK gender neutral. Just for examples I can name offhand.

See the problem is thar many men have been given jobs unfairly. They aren't the best person for the job. They got it because they were men.

Men have to start proving their worth instead of getting a free ride.

Edit: (I skipped a step in my thought process here. Sorry) It sounds like this Selective Service example is an example of the law working. It was used to point out when a job culture advantaged women. One instance of it going females way doesn't make up for most of the time its gone the males way. It doesn't mean that this law has MADE job cultures pro-women. Tighten the law if need be

As to rape and incest, totally agree. Hence feminists pushing to change such laws.

 

[Schadrach]

I feel compelled to point out that every time, every single stinking time we get around to equality and the draft, it's always the old conservative dudes who oppose an equal draft (and women in the military in general) while the feminist position is either "have women sign up for the draft" or, more popularly, "no draft at all"

You'll note I never said feminists push against this one, in particular. Because it's a case where they generally don't. Though I should point out that should NCFM vs Selective Service end with Selective Service being made gender neutral, I fully expect that suddenly a lot more resources will be put towards ending it entirely. Because suddenly ending it will be seen as drastically more important.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You'll note I never said feminists push against this one, in particular. Because it's a case where they generally don't. Though I should point out that should NCFM vs Selective Service end with Selective Service being made gender neutral, I fully expect that suddenly a lot more resources will be put towards ending it entirely. Because suddenly ending it will be seen as drastically more important.

It's generally seen as not important because A) it hasn't been used in two generations and B) the military does not want to use it.

It's like any other bit of bullshit legacy legislation that just hasn't been taken off the books yet, propped up by conservative old draft dodgers that like to talk tough.

I think those MRAs that want it 50-50 are in the wrong. You?

I usually get the response that there shouldn't be any war when asking why we have 95% male casualty rates and a male only draft. I think the stats are that more women oppose a draft for women than do men. And of course, on this, women are getting their way.
As @MrCalavera was noting above, I'd written some MRAs want to use Feminists own rhetoric on them. They currently act as if they are at a buffet table. If they see something they like that favors men, that is bigotry that must be changed: 50-50. Something positive that favors women? That's fine. Something where men are more likely to be harmed? That's fine too. Those MRAs are saying your aren't at a buffet table. You want 50-50 or its bigotry? Then EVERYTHING should be 50-50. I think simply pointing at a disparity and saying force of law must be used to make that thing 50-50 a bad idea that will in the end hurt everyone.

What fucking stats?

Like, shit, dude, we've got male nursing scholarships and the like these days.

 

[gorfias]

It's generally seen as not important because A) it hasn't been used in two generations and B) the military does not want to use it.

It's like any other bit of bullshit legacy legislation that just hasn't been taken off the books yet, propped up by conservative old draft dodgers that like to talk tough.

What fucking stats?

Like, shit, dude, we've got male nursing scholarships and the like these days.

For starters, we've been going on for pages about a 2015 California law that mandates quotas for a min. number of women on Corporate boards. It has been challenged at least once but dismissed not on the merits of the case, but because the court found a stock holder did not have standing to bring the case. I wonder if a Corporation itself has standing, or will it have to be a guy that wants to prove that, but for this law, he would have gotten a position he was denied due to his sex.

 

[Schadrach]

It's generally seen as not important because A) it hasn't been used in two generations and B) the military does not want to use it.

It's like any other bit of bullshit legacy legislation that just hasn't been taken off the books yet, propped up by conservative old draft dodgers that like to talk tough.

You missed the key to what I wrote. It wasn't just grumping that abolishing Selective Service hasn't been anyone's priority but a specific prediction - IF NCFM vs Selective Service is resolved by requiring women also to register for Selective Service (as opposed to ending Selective Service or the case being dismissed), THEN ending Selective Service will suddenly jump up drastically in priority. It'll still be a program that hasn't been actively used in a long time and would be very unpopular and thus would only be invoked in the worst of emergencies, but that it might also apply to women will make ending it become more important by itself.

 

[MrCalavera]

I think those MRAs that want it 50-50 are in the wrong. You?

I think if you want a parity of casualties, you need to have parity in the workforce. There's no going around that.

 

[gorfias]

I think if you want a parity of casualties, you need to have parity in the workforce. There's no going around that.

A big part of why I don't want parity in the workforce. I don't want parity of casualties.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I feel like a lot of this stems from the new social pressures to treat everything as equal when such things are impossible. Everyone has gotten so afraid of saying that people are different, that any accusation of differences has become viewed as an attack.

But if anyone wants to argue that men and women are not equal, physically or mentally in anyway, then people loose their mind.

Men are bigger and stronger. You'll never see a woman playing Left Tackle in the NFL because she would die.

Men and women think differently. Studies have shown that sheer thought processes of men and women are different. I forget what the breakdown was exactly but there is scientific differences. And because of those differences there are some differences between job desires. Why women steer towards nursing more than men for example. Or why men veer towards mechanical things like cars.

The big problem is that these movements want to act like being different is a bad thing. It's not. There is nothing wrong with different people being interested in different things, in having different motivational factors, different desires, it's one of the biggest reasons behind mankind's developmental progress.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[CriticalGaming]

Prove to me that these differences in thought processes and psychology are biological and not socially created.

Took me two seconds to google. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

And there are plenty more, including some bias ones that say there is no difference, but the general scientific consensus seems to indicate that there is a distinct difference in the way the parts of the brain connect and interact with itself in the sexes.

Basically it breaks down into the way the brain is wired. Men tend to be more responsive with physical tasks and performance, while women are most capable of analysis and intuition.

Neither of those things can possibly be socially created, as they are the raw result of the way neurons fire in the brain. While the basics of biology will always allow for some variants, these are straight up natural evolutionary results.

And that then manifests into society. The reason again why men are most drawn to mechanical physical type jobs and hobbies. The reason why women tend to perform better in academics, and also find themselves more drawn into analytical jobs like accounting, nursing, etc.

Society is a result of our natural drives and evolutions, so you can't turn around and blame society as the reason why men like to brutalize each other in football, while women like to knit and sew.

That being said, the resulting society does provide influence when people try to go outside the normal. The reason why we call it normal is because the default is just what people are used too and therefore when things clash against it, it causes confusion and push back. And people go against "normal" all the time, in every statistic block there are always outliers. But outliers do not disprove the system, in fact they PROVE the system.

Ever heard the expression, "Exceptions prove the rule"? That's what we see in everyday life.

Are there male nurses? Yes, but the differential is drastic because the natural rule states women are much more likely to pursue such a job.

Are there female race car drivers? Yes, but the differential is drastic because of the natural rule. And further proof to this effect of men being better mechanically can be seen in the win ratio. Why does Danica Patrick have shitty stats considering every car is required to be roughly the exact same in terms of capability? https://www.racing-reference.info/driver/Danica_Patrick/ She might be a fantastic driver compared to your average Joe, but when compared to professional race car drivers she's fairly terrible.

What i just don't understand is why people are trying to deny the differences between the sexes? Is it simply an effort to make Gender Fluid biologically justified? What's wrong with being different? Why are people trying to invent science?

Sure there are differences, but a woman who is physically capable of doing a demanding job should not be excluded because her genitals are the wrong shape. I've used this comparison for the military before and I think it holds up: Most men can't become Special Forces operators, but no one thinks that means we should not let men apply for the Special Forces. So even if only 1 in 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 in 10 million women can take the rigors of SF duty they should still be allowed to apply. If they wash out, they wash out and that's that.

You're right in theory. But the problem is, that women aren't capable of reaching the same physical prowess as men.

In fact the military has had to LOWER requirements in order to make it acceptable for women to join up. Women are allowed to have more body fat than men, women are allowed to run the mile slower than men, women are not required to do the same things physically in boot camp tests as the male counterparts because if they were required to do the EXACT SAME things, then women could not pass.

This is further highlighted when you look at trans athletes fucking destroying women in events. Because even a trans male to female athlete, will have naturally more physical capability than women even if that person has been on testosterone blockers (or however the hormone therapy works) for the required amount of time.

 

[Schadrach]

Sure there are differences, but a woman who is physically capable of doing a demanding job should not be excluded because her genitals are the wrong shape.

Totally agreed. I just also think that she shouldn't be held to lesser standards than the men, and that's what usually happens when the goal is to open up such positions more to women - they set a separate, lower standard for women so "enough" women will pass.

For example, the first woman to become a Ranger was allowed to repeat tests that were one shot pass or fail for the men, was given special preparatory training that men didn't, and was given prior access to the overland navigation course before testing began. They'd pre-decided she was going to be their first female Ranger, and they did whatever it took to make that happen.

Similar things happen in other fields where physical ability is important to doing the job, such as firefighters.

 

[McElroy]

snip

The biological determinism you try to explain is a decent approximation when we're talking about ancient hunter-gatherer tribes in their natural life cycle. Such reductionism in our modern societies is ridiculous. Sure, the best race car drivers will always be men, but the rest of it is pretty thick. Like, women weren't even allowed into academics a hundred years ago, but they've always had the biological advantage? If only we'd let them in earlier! Imagine how far humanity would be.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Took me two seconds to google. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

And there are plenty more, including some bias ones that say there is no difference, but the general scientific consensus seems to indicate that there is a distinct difference in the way the parts of the brain connect and interact with itself in the sexes.

Basically it breaks down into the way the brain is wired. Men tend to be more responsive with physical tasks and performance, while women are most capable of analysis and intuition.

Neither of those things can possibly be socially created, as they are the raw result of the way neurons fire in the brain. While the basics of biology will always allow for some variants, these are straight up natural evolutionary results.

And that then manifests into society. The reason again why men are most drawn to mechanical physical type jobs and hobbies. The reason why women tend to perform better in academics, and also find themselves more drawn into analytical jobs like accounting, nursing, etc.

Okay, but that makes it double weird how 95% of CEO's are male though. Like, if we accept this data whole heartedly and full throatedly, then the vast majority of the upper level management of corporations *should be* female.

You missed the key to what I wrote. It wasn't just grumping that abolishing Selective Service hasn't been anyone's priority but a specific prediction - IF NCFM vs Selective Service is resolved by requiring women also to register for Selective Service (as opposed to ending Selective Service or the case being dismissed), THEN ending Selective Service will suddenly jump up drastically in priority. It'll still be a program that hasn't been actively used in a long time and would be very unpopular and thus would only be invoked in the worst of emergencies, but that it might also apply to women will make ending it become more important by itself.

Inertia in public policy is weird that way. I don't really care that the only way we'll get rid of it is for the old conservative white dudes propping it up in the first place don't want women filling out a post card.

For starters, we've been going on for pages about a 2015 California law that mandates quotas for a min. number of women on Corporate boards. It has been challenged at least once but dismissed not on the merits of the case, but because the court found a stock holder did not have standing to bring the case. I wonder if a Corporation itself has standing, or will it have to be a guy that wants to prove that, but for this law, he would have gotten a position he was denied due to his sex.

I believe we should achieve parity of corporate boards via elimination by gunfire, so I have a hard time giving a shit, but theoretically zero corporations have a problem with this law and zero people who actually have any amount of business survival skills wouldn't challenge it in court.

After all, they'd have to prove to a court that CEOs or other applicable upper level managers have "skills" and that would probably be a bad time for the capitalist class.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Like, women weren't even allowed into academics a hundred years ago, but they've always had the biological advantage?

The brain differences explains why they are better academically now, but that doesn't mean that their biological analytical advantage didn't get used in other applications before they were allowed in school systems or even before school systems were even invented. People have been learning for far longer than they've been teaching. These analytical capabilities could likely have been utilized to find the best gathering locations or settlement locations in tribal times. Not to mention the detail understanding to craft things that the men likely never considered.

My example is just a modern application, not a hard fast rule of every application.

If only we'd let them in earlier! Imagine how far humanity would be.

Well that depends. It's typically men that apply themselves into sciences. When I say they are better in academics, that doesn't equal all possible educative subjects. There is a reason men tend to become Doctors over nurses, lawyers, etc.

Not to mention the biological desires to have families and the unfortunate side effect of having babies, means that women tend to not get super deep into high-end careers. Of course there are exceptions to that as many women hold high ranking positions everywhere, but it is a significant contributing factor as to why those numbers are much lower than the progressive moment would want.

It breaks down to the hunter/gather foundation of human life. Men no longer have to go hunt big creatures to provide for the family, instead we have to hunt for the big payday to support our families. While women can now help with that $$$ hunt, they still get held up because it is the female body that grows the children which limits things unless baby-making is massively delayed or ignored by the woman completely.

Which adds to another problem with baby-making and the female potential for careers. Men often have to work for years and years to work themselves up to a position of high stand later in life (40+ let's say). And that same effort can be put forth and achievement by women as well. The reason why it doesn't and why the question of "why can't women just have kids once they've reached their career goal" doesn't work. Is that once a woman reaches over the age of 35, having children becomes much more difficult biologically. Natural miscarriage's are much more common in "older" women, conceiving a child is much harder, basically female reproduction gets harder the closer a woman gets to menopause.

So there is a biological advantage in having kids at a younger age, which comes at the cost of less time to pursue a career.

Medical science has given us a much longer lifespan than nature intended I think. We are animals that can live to be 80-100 years old, but that is only due to medical advancement. In reality we used to die between 40-60 which is why girls used to be married off around 12 years old.

Human natural history is a foundational explaination for why things work the way they do, even to this day. And it will continue to be the case until humankind evolves into another species entirely in another quarter of a million years.

 

[Schadrach]

I believe we should achieve parity of corporate boards via elimination by gunfire

From a third party, or are you thinking more Battle Royale?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Okay, but that makes it double weird how 95% of CEO's are male though. Like, if we accept this data whole heartedly and full throatedly, then the vast majority of the upper level management of corporations *should be* female.

I actually hit on this in my previous post #155. Read that and you'll see why.

 

[McElroy]

I'll stick with this being the type of annoying conclusions people get from staring at evolutionary science for too long and hard.

Medical science has given us a much longer lifespan than nature intended I think. We are animals that can live to be 80-100 years old, but that is only due to medical advancement. In reality we used to die between 40-60

I was wondering this same thing not too long ago and this article about prehistoric grandparents is pretty interesting. People also have no trouble living to their 80's without modern medicine. The approximate life expectancies in old times were low because of infant and maternal mortality as well as violence and regularly occurring famines. Go further beyond and people were almost completely at the mercy of nature.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I'll stick with this being the type of annoying conclusions people get from staring at evolutionary science for too long and hard.
I was wondering this same thing not too long ago and this article about prehistoric grandparents is pretty interesting. People also have no trouble living to their 80's without modern medicine. The approximate life expectancies in old times were low because of infant and maternal mortality as well as violence and regularly occurring famines. Go further beyond and people were almost completely at the mercy of nature.

You know what, that's fair enough. However it doesn't negate the reproductive height of human biology being late teens through mid 20's. And without the medical science to help pregnancy, people still would have needed to have kids young.

 

[McElroy]

You know what, that's fair enough. However it doesn't negate the reproductive height of human biology being late teens through mid 20's. And without the medical science to help pregnancy, people still would have needed to have kids young.

I agree with you on principle but the details are a bit iffy. Medical science comes into play after roughly 35 of age, and thus a biological need to get knocked up at 15-16-17 is dubious. But when you come of age and start bonking you are bound to get someone pregnant or get pregnant yourself. So that's what people did, and that was expected to happen. Nobody had a plan like "maybe 3 kids, two girls and a boy" like they nowadays might.

But yes, there is a time when fertility is statistically highest and at some point roughly after 35 it starts to decrease significantly. Nowadays we prefer an extended "young adult" life that doesn't have much room for children. There are a bunch of reasons for that, and they're all difficult to solve.