The problem with feminists is that they're not pro-women but against-men.
And that's the problem with all these PC brigades and platoons, they're always against, their base is hate; defending lgbt rights is a weapon for attacking Caucasian heterosexual males.
That statement is entirely false. The vast, vast majority of feminists (and all significant feminist writing) focuses on promoting equality for all. The impression that feminists are somehow opposed to men is mainly based on fear, and not on reality. I wold recommend you start getting your info on what feminists are for and against from actual feminists, and not people vilifying them. If you want a tip, Robert Jensen's excellent
The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men (yeah, the title is a bit silly) is a short and easy-to-read but extremely informative and well researched introduction to feminism, the analysis of society that it builds on, and how men stand to gain significantly from the deconstruction of patriarchal society.
@Valantar
"Oh boo hoo. Poor white men, losing a tiny amount of the privilege they've had for the past several centuries. "
I love it when people just smear this bogeyman privilege across entire race because some plantation owners from 300 years ago were rich and had slaves. 90% of people have nothing to do with any of that and we don't have any special privileges because we're white. I mean, last time I walked into Aston Martin dealership and I said I want to buy new DB11 with my white privilege and they just laughed...
You should update your definition of "privilege". Having privilege doesn't mean that you're rich or successful. It doesn't even necessarily mean that your life doesn't suck. What it means, at least in this broad sense, is a myriad of large and (mostly) small ways in which you're either given preferential treatment or don't have to worry about your own safety and security. A few examples of male privilege: being generally seen as better suited for high-status jobs regardless of qualifications; having their opinions listened to and respected to a significantly higher degree regardless of qualifications; generally not having to worry about being assaulted or raped by new acquaintances or while walking home alone (though feeling safe/unsafe like this is a far broader thing than these specific situations); not having gendered slurs and clichés thrown at you if you try to assert yourself; not having to constantly worry that the way you look and act conforms to other people's standards of beauty; not having to contend with the notion that other people have a right to your body. That's just a tiny, tiny, tiny list, but one that hopefully gives you a little taste of the kind of constant worry and self-policing most women have to contend with in daily life. I'm obviously not saying that men can't have worries, shitty lives, or anything like that, but that even then, there are quite a few situations in everyday life that they have it easier than the women around them. White privilege is largely the same, works in the same ways, though its exact forms differ somewhat (though there's also a large overlap, especially in self-policing of behavior, fear of violence, slurs and name-calling, and being treated as less qualified or less talented). White privilege is more significantly linked to economics, though, with white people being seen as "more professional" and similar nonsensical statements (not to mention most Western societies' ingrained fear of brown-skinned men, leading them to be seen as dangerous or overly aggressive), not to mention "smarter" and "more talented" (again, with absolutely zero basis in actual fact). Socioeconomic differences and a society with few/no means to correct for these ensures that these ideas live on; access to higher education is a very significant factor here.
Yes, early computers existed then and Alan Turing, not associated an as engineer died nine years later after WWII where he made significant contribution to the field. I'm sorry if it's news to you that computer science started much earlier than the 1960s with roots as far back as the 1930s. The reason why programming was seen as secretarial work then was because it actually was, they weren't doing any actual coding someone else presumably a computer scientist would develop the code, then this code would be transferred to punch cards that would be used to program the computers not unlike scantrons. You don't need any knowledge of computing to perform such a task it was menial and hence why it was a secretarial duty.
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. They
did do the programming, the math required for the programming, and developed the logic required to process the tasks at hand into machine code. This is exactly why it was considered secretarial work: a male scientist more or less said "We need the computer to calculate this and this," and left it to the programmers (and their competency and knowledge of the workings of the computers, which was obviously
very significant), and expected them to come back with an answer. "Computer scientists" at that time were (not that that term existed at the time), on average, either hardware engineers (as this was seen as the "important" thing to be working on) or female. Not that Hollywood movies are anything at all to look to for historical accuracy, but the film Hidden Figures shows quite accurately (if with an overly dramatic flair) how most computing was done at that time. As for Alan turing, while a pioneer in both computer hardware design and logic, he would likely have been labeled an engineer today. But even though there were
obviously exceptions to these general trends, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of early programming work was done by women, and not just "transferring code to punch cards".
Right back at you. That is textbook discrimination, it does happen, your point?
My point being that you presented as an argument "nobody has been denied this education". This is a counterargument explaining how outright denial of access/exclusion is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discriminatory social structures.
So, because more men commit crimes, this has to be founded in biology? Seriously? It's becoming quite clear to me that you have an excessive belief in the effects of biology and hormones on our behaviour (a sentiment that the vast majority of psychologists, biologists and behavioural researchers would disagree with you on), and I'm not likely to convince you otherwise. But you seriously need to look into socioeconomic background and other societal factors before you talk more about this. Crime rates and recidivism can almost exclusively be accounted for by socioeconomic status (poverty in particular) and culture.
Specifically, traditional male culture (or gender roles more generally, really) plays a significant part here. How? Men are generally (still) expected to be the primary breadwinners in their family, and this is more true in poorer demographic groups (which tend to lean conservative due to a myriad of factors). This imperative is not to be trifled with. If your partner, children, extended family and friends all expect you to be able to feed and clothe your loved ones, yet you're unable to - through no fault of your own or lack of trying - how would you respond? Reasoned debate and careful planning of how to move forward is not the default answer in situations like this - particularly as poor people are under such constant stress that they're essentially forced to make short-term judgements and bad decisions. This is a significant, if not the most significant cause for most petty (and a large amount of non-petty) crime. Non-serious drug crime is more common among poorer groups due to the mixture of overpolicing ("they're poor, so the data says they're more likely to be criminal, so we should search them more often" (not to mention the initial issues surrounding criminalization drugs and how they're classified, a system that's inherently both racist and classist)) and more significant need for an escape from shitty living conditions (not that poor people use more drugs than wealthy people - often quite the opposite - but the how and why is often different). Explaining the degree of violence in poorer societies/sections of society is more complex, but can still largely be accounted for by the mix of desperation, loss of sense of self/self-worth, and cultural proliferation of unattainable ideals of wealth and status. Or, more to the point, this is how patriarchy (as defined by feminist theory) harms men: by setting us up to compete with each other excessively, by linking our self-worth (and others' view of our worth) to factors entirely outside of our control (something not at all limited to men, but the factors in question are heavily gendered), by maintaining a culture in which it's seen as better for men to lash out violently to regain social status than to acknowledge problems and deal with them to the best of our abilities, by maintaining a culture where not being able to feed yourself or your family isn't just a physical problem but an almost insurmountable loss of face ("not man enough" and so on), by maintaining a culture where men are taught not to express (and thus not get access to help processing) their emotions - and the list goes on, and on, and on and on and on. By the way, this same analysis of social dynamics also fully explains the higher suicide rate among men, a key point among MRAs and similar groups who adhere to biological determinst explanations of behavior like yours, which biology definitely has no answer to.
If you read the NYTimes article, it takes 1000s of years for social changes to be encoded in DNA at best.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't say otherwise. I'm just saying that this alone is proof that genetics are a) not representative of or causal for human behavior to a significant degree, and b) in no way fixed or simple in how they relate to the physical world. Our genes provide a basis for our physical being, and our physical being is both what we experience the world and our lives through and what we use to interact with the world - but neither are in a deterministic relationship with personality, behavior or culture. There's simply too much in-between for that, in terms of upbringing, cultural influences and societal norms imprinted on us throughout our lives.
No. Sex offenders are 30+ times more likely to repeat it than someone that hasn't. I basically scratched the surface of a topic that needs chapters written that I'm not going to go into here.
With your extreme focus on biology, it sure seemed like that was what you've said. If that's not what you meant, you need to express yourself with more nuance. I agree that this is an extremely complex topic, but summing it up with "recidivism is huge so it's likely genetic" is ... not the treatment such a topic deserves.
Only out of necessity. For example, a tribe that had several men but one or two elderly women would readily accept a female outcast in the name of survival. Survival isn't very paramount these days numbering around 7 billion people so tribes are more likely to reject outcasts than accept them.
Sorry, but how is this different from tribes closing themselves off from others? Wasn't that also out of necessity? And no, the example you're talking about is
not what I was talking about - I'm talking about fundamentally open and extroverted societies that welcome others and treat them as guests, often letting them live with them for prolonged periods. These have historically not been rare. Once again you're taking a highly complex subject - tribal behaviour patterns towards outsiders - and trying to boil them down to an oversimplified biologized rationale, without any actual foundation to build this on - and in this case, with rather obvious orientalist and colonialist influences on your thinking that are seemingly ignored, or at the very least not acknowledged.
You're thinking too literal. Example of modern tribes relevant to TPU: the tribe of AMD and the tribe of NVIDIA.
And you're mixing metaphorical and literal use of the word; linking attributes of real, historical literal tribes to metaphorical "tribes" (aka. social groupings).
Men are more aggressive (thanks testosterone) so more inclined to take what they need and be violent towards people that they feel wronged them. Women are more likely to seek a social solution (thanks estrogen) like rely on someone else for basic needs or encourage someone else (usually a male) to exact retribution for a wrong. That said, women are more likely to shoplift than men. Men like to rob houses, cars, and cash registers more than women. Heh, more aggressive means of getting money. The patterns are obvious and well documented. Shocked I need to spell it out here. Also, they're not unique to the USA; they're global.
While there is a link between higher testosterone levels and higher levels of aggression, your argument is a classic oversimplification of correlation into causation. Your argument doesn't explain why these people have increased levels of testosterone (and it's well established that hormonal levels are significantly affected by living conditions both immediately and over time - in other words, socioeconomic conditions). It also doesn't explain how these exact high-testosterone people become violet offenders - there are plenty of non-violent, law-abiding high-testosterone men in the world, and also plenty of violent non-high-testosterone men. While the biological aspect here might point out an increased likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior overall, it's in no way a predictor of behavior outright. And in terms of crime rates, the correlation between socioeconomic background and crime rates
far exceeds that of testosterone levels.
Also, your biological explanation doesn't account for how aggressive women are derided and looked down on, and generally criticized for the same exact aggression that in your argumentation makes men more successful - and that's in identical settings. In other words, you're discounting how societal norms and gender norms shape people's
response to aggression, which is just as significant as the aggression itself.
His orginal argument was that adding a female character to a male antagonist game was a small matter and didnt cost extra. Lets assume we are talking AAA games maybe even high end Indie games, not some below average, fresh out of school crap game made by one person (although it wouldnt surprise me if he changed his argument to suit the conditions here). The cookie cutter mode, still adds to the bottom line, still takes time to do it, but adding a female character to a relative all male game, means you have to add animation so they can walk/run properly and still look like female. Then there is appearance and itemization, gotta make sure the clothes fit right which doubles the already in game male clothing and armors. Weapon brandishing and animation is slightly different than male characters. as well not much but enough. Like I said 10-20% added cost and maybe 3-6 months development time.
Sorry, but that "argument" was thoroughly debunked by developers at the time of that silly "can't add female characters because of the cost" controversy. The key: it's entirely possible to re-use animations across male and female coded characters - in fact, there's no basis whatsoever to say that men and women in the same role, with the same training (say, soldiers, doctors, scientists, police) move more differently than the variance within men with different physiological traits. As such, reusing animations between genders is no problem whatsoever. Also, for some reason you're arguing from a basis where you're assuming the default is an already all-male game, seemingly not even considering that it's possible to include non-male characters from the very beginning of development. That says quite a lot of your outlook on these things.
Okay, some clarification.... I'm free to present them in this country, it's just that I'm not allowed to present them on 95% of the internet without being banned by somebody.
a) That statement is patently false, the internet is after all chock-full of extremism of all kinds.
b) If you're routinely banned for expressing your opinions, have you considered that perhaps those opinions are arguing for harming others, and have you possibly considered changing them? In general, non-harmful opinions are not policed anywhere online that I'm familiar with, at least.
c) Can you give me an example of a
fact that you're not allowed to present? Or is this another case of "I picked this research article and took a statement or finding out of context, presented it as the ultimate proof of a discriminatory social structure being correct/natural/fair, and someone told me to stop taking things out of context, presented an argument as to why the context changes the interpretation of the finding, or just called me out for promoting discrimination"? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me.
I'm not defending them because of this.