MovieChat Forums > The Red Pill (2017) Discussion > The delusion of modern gender relations

The delusion of modern gender relations

posted 8 years ago by johnj-60801
48 replies | jump to latest

Hindus have something they call dharma. Though difficult to translate, the essence of the word is that everything has a role to play, and that those roles are in turn aligned with the order of the universe. Western women today have forgotten their dharma. The ethos of our time is one in which in it is acceptable, and even encouraged, to vilify men, with the common refrain being that men are somehow less than women. Irrespective of what the dictionary says about feminism, this is what the ideology has degenerated into. It has given rise to a culture of infantilizing women, which has in turn bred a generation of entitled women implicitly accustomed to receiving privileges every step of their lives. Though these privileges made sense at one point as corrective measures, today women are equal in every conceivable way. The remaining controversies – rape culture, the wage gap, etc. – fall apart almost immediately under objective scrutiny, and are better understood in the context of Hoffer’s The True Believer. Each generation has its own peculiar form of collective delusion – and this is ours.

Equality has never meant complete comfort or guaranteed outcomes but instead simply having a fair shake to do what you want. We can be equal without being the same, and indeed our differences are some of our greatest strengths. Rather than attempting to force the sexes into one shape that neither quite fits, and which will inevitably give rise to conflict, perhaps it is again time we embraced our differences.

And lest it be said that I am uneducated and therefore the opinions expressed above null, I would like to note that I completed my undergraduate degree Phi Betta Kappa / summa cum laude and have postgraduate degrees from two Ivy League universities.

Where are all the real men? We’re waiting for the real women to come back.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

Western women today have forgotten their dharma.

Translation: Western women don't know their place anymore and are getting uppity.

(But those non-Western women--they behave well.)

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

Your position is inherently reductive and on its face seems driven by ideological (i.e., probably illogical) rhetoric. Despite this, even if the premises of your position are accepted as valid, from a purely historical perspective, you’re still wrong. The notion that it is somehow pejorative for people to have a “place” in society is largely contemporary and entirely unaligned with history. Furthermore, from a sociological standpoint, it is well established that populations segment themselves (i.e., adopt roles) of their own free will. As a man, I have a role to play. There’s nothing wrong with that. I may not like it all the time, but it doesn’t change the reality.

Your deconstructionism is not new either. There is a stream of thought beginning with Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Paine which advocated for complete redefinitions of important societal conceptions rather than relying on established understandings of human relations. In our time, one of these conceptions being redefined is gender relations.

However, these redefining periods are almost inevitably destructive and almost never fully bring about the intended change, typically resulting instead in what are seeing today: a period of ideologically driven polarization with inimical effects on a broad range of societal sectors before a return to the relative mean where power relations have essentially remained for thousands of years. Plato understood this, which is why in The Republic he advanced an idealized conception of the state which prioritized stability.

Finally, your ostensible lack of intellectual originalism in pursuit of ideological ends is precisely what Hoffer was discussing in his seminal book mentioned in my initial post. I would recommend reading it.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

Your position is inherently reductive and on its face seems driven by ideological (i.e., probably illogical) rhetoric.

And your position is driven by pseudo-intellectual BS with no scientific basis. You are just another insecure, pathetic man desperately trying to find a way to justify the privilege you see ebbing away day after day. I have to admit taking such pleasure in watching folks like you whine.

You people have lost the culture wars. And there is no going back. I suggest you simply grow up and face the new reality.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

You’ll notice what I did in my response was respond to your position rather than engage in unsubstantiated personal attacks. Which is, predictably, beyond your depth. Indeed, this entire exchange has done nothing but seem to indicate that you are far overmatched in this dialogue.

Research in the social sciences – which I have degrees in at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level – is inherently manipulable. Your “scientific” facts are quite often simply the manifestations of what researchers want to find, rather than reflecting any objective reality. My “pseudo-intellectualism” is premised on centuries of political and social theory, as well as an unfortunate understanding of human nature.

Your arguments are nonexistent, your positions predicated on accepting ideologically driven narratives, and your posts, frankly, are not worth my time. I will no longer be responding to you unless you can offer something substantive.

[–] FayShull 8 years ago

Don't bother wasting your time with faustus5. All you got to do is look at his posting history and you will see that out of his past 150 posts 144 of them are insults and arguments with people.

It's at the point where he doesn't log into IMDB to discuss opinions. He just is looking for an argument.

Totally pathetic and sad.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

Right, thanks.

It seems that more and more these kinds of people are coming to the fore of the SJW/feminism debates. It's almost like their identities are so caught up in the "cause" that they can't see what they look like to everyone else.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

Research in the social sciences – which I have degrees in at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level. . .

Yes, and there are plenty of folks with similar pedigrees in the fields of science who are Young Earth creationists and climate change deniers. Your little pieces of paper mean nothing.

What matters is your output, and when you justify the history of male privilege using worn out metaphysical BS like "dharma", you indicate instantly that you are utterly clueless and in denial.

Your “scientific” facts are quite often simply the manifestations of what researchers want to find, rather than reflecting any objective reality.

Translation: whenever the scientific community comes to a conclusion that goes against your sexist assumptions, they must be biased. In other words, you are projecting your own methodology on the mainstream.

Sorry, sparky--the scientific method is by design meant to thwart the very biases you falsely claim motivate science in the first place. If you had learned anything from your alleged degrees, you'd know this.

My “pseudo-intellectualism” is premised on centuries of political and social theory, as well as an unfortunate understanding of human nature.

There is absolutely nothing in mainstream, respectable social theory which supports your despicable ideology. You are expressing disgusting ideas that are completely on the fringes of the alt-right.

And you know this.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=0

The scientific method is most helpful in the hard sciences, i.e., the natural sciences. The overwhelming majority of research driving debate around gender relations comes from social science, which uses much more flexible research techniques. The use of these research methodologies has been an overarching criticism of social sciences since their inception in the 19th century.

“Male privilege”, "the patriarchy”, etc. are social constructs. They are no more concrete than Weber’s iron cage or Protestant work ethic. Gender parallelism is not sexism, despite your assertions to the contrary. It is simply another theory of how society best functions.

The essence of academic debate is engaging in a respectful dialogue with those you fundamentally disagree with. The fact that I disagree with you, or the picture of reality that you get from the mainstream media, means nothing. It is no more evidence of my supposed wrongness than is the sky being blue.

To be honest, your approach to the concepts we are discussing and the language you are using to discuss those concepts leads me to conclude that you are simply toeing an ideological line. In other words, I could be discussing the issue with any other number of people who adhere to your ideology and get essentially the same responses. This is the very antithesis of independent thought, which is meant to underlie all truly productive intellectual inquiry.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

The scientific method is most helpful in the hard sciences, i.e., the natural sciences. The overwhelming majority of research driving debate around gender relations comes from social science, which uses much more flexible research techniques. The use of these research methodologies has been an overarching criticism of social sciences since their inception in the 19th century.

Well, at least we agree on something--I have been following the recent news about the trouble of repeatability in the social and psychological sciences. (It has always been an issue but the chatter about it has been increasing.) It is indeed a problem, though given how complex human nature in social contexts is, I'm not sure that any improvements in methodology would ever fix the problem. It is likely the nature of the beast, like the measurement problem in quantum physics. (I mean that metaphorically.)

But of course, this cuts both ways.

“Male privilege”, "the patriarchy”, etc. are social constructs. They are no more concrete than Weber’s iron cage or Protestant work ethic.

So, too, is the “dhama” you referenced in the opening post.

It is simply another theory of how society best functions.

Your claims will deserve the label of “theory” when they become something other than evidence-free assertions that merely serve to codify the prejudices of a fading view.

The fact that I disagree with you, or the picture of reality that you get from the mainstream media, means nothing. It is no more evidence of my supposed wrongness than is the sky being blue.

But it most certainly is an indication that your views are completely out of step with what most people who study these subjects have concluded. This does not guarantee you are completely wrong, but it does, in a statistical sense, make the notion that your views will ever be confirmed and accepted by your peers extremely unlikely.

To be honest, your approach to the concepts we are discussing and the language you are using to discuss those concepts leads me to conclude that you are simply toeing an ideological line.

No, that is what YOU are doing. I’m simply standing up for basic decency.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

I entirely agree that dharma is not concrete. It is simply something I employed to illustrate my point. However, regardless of whether or not a certain perspective is in vogue at the moment, it can still be a legitimate theory. The rightness or wrongness of an idea exists apart from society. Quite often, in fact, society wholeheartedly embraces perspectives that future generations find wholly inconsistent with their current approach to governance (e.g., the Victorian era, manifest destiny). In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill cautioned against this, noting that it is the height of hubris, and is extraordinarily dangerous, to conclude any idea right simply because it conforms to the zeitgeist.

My view is much more popular than I think you care to admit. Within cities, and parts of the West that have traditionally embraced more expansive definitions of gender relations, your thinking absolutely prevails. But there are huge parts of both the U.S. and the rest of the world, including the West, where my viewpoint has more standing – among both women and men.

The mainstream media and academia – who exist almost exclusively in those parts of the U.S. and world that adhere to your perspective, or at least are islands unto themselves – are not doing service to this diversity of opinion. Instead, they choose, probably unconsciously in many instances, to embrace the idea that gender-related issues are settled for any decent person. In doing so, they other alternate viewpoints, creating an environment where attacking those who deviate from what is wrongly perceived the ethical norm is permissible.

I have never once written, or intimated, that I thought men and women were unequal. In fact, I categorically do not think that. I just think the sexes are different, that they think differently, and have different strengths, which in turn will affect how they approach society. It is my opinion that it is only logical to allow the sexes to embrace their differences rather than attempting to subsume those differences into an androgynous mold that happens to be in style at the moment, but which will ultimately lead to more problems as people repress their actual identities in an effort to conform to society’s perceived expectations.

You are embracing what has been labeled by thought leaders the dominant ideology, ipso facto engaging in enforcing what the elites have declared right. I am embracing a contrarian perspective not aligned with most mainstream academics or media figures, ipso facto fighting against enforcing the dominant ideology. In other words, I am not the one toeing the line.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

The rightness or wrongness of an idea exists apart from society.

What, in some kind of magical non-human metaphysical space? How do we contact this realm to compare the rightness or wrongness of our ideas to the "truth"?

Quite often, in fact, society wholeheartedly embraces perspectives that future generations find wholly inconsistent with their current approach to governance (e.g., the Victorian era, manifest destiny). In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill cautioned against this, noting that it is the height of hubris, and is extraordinarily dangerous, to conclude any idea right simply because it conforms to the zeitgeist.

Yes, social norms evolve over time.

But there are huge parts of both the U.S. and the rest of the world, including the West, where my viewpoint has more standing – among both women and men.

A very sad thing that will probably not last very long, or just be contained in pockets of less civilized groups. Such folks should be free to express their ideas without unreasonable restriction, but not free to force their regressive ideas on others.

In doing so, they other alternate viewpoints, creating an environment where attacking those who deviate from what is wrongly perceived the ethical norm is permissible.

We do the same for outrageous views on race or homosexuality. It is a good thing to demonize those whose views are harmful and unfair to others.

I just think the sexes are different, that they think differently, and have different strengths, which in turn will affect how they approach society.

If I had to roll the dice, my bet would be that evolution built the brains of the sexes slightly differently. The problem, if you know the first thing about cognitive neuroscience, is that human brains are remarkably plastic and sensitive to social influences. This makes the task of measuring any so-called "innate" differences extremely difficult. And to the degree that such difficulty exists, then it becomes meaningless to assert that these differences exist in the first place. You can't construct a valid and serious social theory that depends on unverifiable "facts".

So get back to me when, having created a scientific revolution, you can back up any concrete assertions you make about innate differences between the genders, and do so reliably. Good luck with that!

It is my opinion that it is only logical to allow the sexes to embrace their differences rather than attempting to subsume those differences into an androgynous mold that happens to be in style at the moment, but which will ultimately lead to more problems as people repress their actual identities in an effort to conform to society’s perceived expectations.

Let people decide for themselves what their own strengths and weaknesses are and attempt to live their lives accordingly, succeeding or failing, without trying to shoehorn them into vague, unverifiable ideological commitments to these "differences".

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

It is a basic premise of philosophy going back thousands of years that truth is essentially unknowable. Any intro to philosophy class will teach you that. As a consequence of this, societies should be seen as constructing themselves around norms, not truth. As history shows, these norms are often retrospectively reprehensible, or at least, no longer desirable – despite the fact that in their period of ascendancy those same norms were defended as inalienable fact.

What you are doing is defending a norm, not the truth – but you are defending it as though it is incontrovertible fact. In reality, however, your view is no more “right” than Reagan and the Moral Majority in the 1980s or any of the Great Awakenings. In reality, therefore, the approach you are embracing leads to progressive polarization, as those in your position become increasingly incensed at others not accepting their position as gospel truth. Admittedly, I am also defending a norm – but I understand that it is a norm. Accordingly, I don’t expect others to adhere to my philosophy – but I also do not want it repressed.

I have always been amazed at the paradoxical thinking of those on what is considered the Left today. You write that those who think “regressively” should not be allowed to impose their views on the others. Aside from definitional concerns about what “regressive” actually means, this is exactly what the so-called “progressives” are doing. Based on progressives’ subjective interpretation, they are waging what amounts to ideological war on any who have the temerity to disagree with them concerning gender relations. By your logic, any political group that is in power in the moment is morally justified in imposing their supposedly right views on the population – and those who share your perspectives will certainly not be in power indefinitely.

Absent societal pressure from the Left – which both sexes are increasingly subject to – it is much more likely that gender roles would reflect my position more than yours. As far as differences between the sexes, there are obvious physical differences which are being religiously ignored or minimized in the name of political correctness. There have also been a host of well-respected studies that show that the neural and molecular makeup of male versus female brains is different. As someone who has been involved in the peer review process for professional academic research, I have observed an increased pressure in the last decade or so to suppress research that doesn’t conform to politically correct views. This is why people like you don't know about these studies, not because they don't exist. This is from a two-minute Google search:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2016/06/brain-activity-during-cooperation-differs-by-sex.html
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2013/12/verma/
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/more-evidence-that-male-and-female-brains-are-wired-differently
http://www.conte.harvard.edu/news/2015/6/5/brain-cells-that-differ-in-males-and-females

Let people decide for themselves what their own strengths and weaknesses are and attempt to live their lives accordingly, succeeding or failing, without trying to shoehorn them into vague, unverifiable ideological commitments to these "differences".

I literally laughed for like two minutes when I read this. A colleague walking by came into my office to check on me I was laughing so hard. Of course I agree with this. Categorically, beyond any doubt, do I agree with this. But it is your side, not mine, that is attacking people and shaming them into conformity.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

It is a basic premise of philosophy going back thousands of years that truth is essentially unknowable. Any intro to philosophy class will teach you that.

I'm a philosophy major, sweetie. And no, that is in fact not a universally agreed to proposition. The reality of what philosophers have said about truth over the centuries is far more complicated.

What you are doing is defending a norm, not the truth – but you are defending it as though it is incontrovertible fact.

Please articulate what truths you know. All I see are norms that evolve over time.

Accordingly, I don’t expect others to adhere to my philosophy – but I also do not want it repressed.

Except that your philosophy is oppressive in itself if what you intend is to roll back the advances that feminist ideals have instituted in Western society. If that isn’t what you want, then articulate, for the first time in this thread, specific policy choices your “theory” proposes.

You write that those who think “regressively” should not be allowed to impose their views on the others. Aside from definitional concerns about what “regressive” actually means, this is exactly what the so-called “progressives” are doing.

Specific examples of this progressive oppression would be nice.

Based on progressives’ subjective interpretation, they are waging what amounts to ideological war on any who have the temerity to disagree with them concerning gender relations.

Because those who disagree with them typically support discriminatory policies.

There have also been a host of well-respected studies that show that the neural and molecular makeup of male versus female brains is different..

I couldn’t care less about any of that because none of it is relevant to anything we are talking about. I didn't spell it out because I thought it was bloody obvious, but brain differences by themselves have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. What matters is brain differences that result in signifiant behavioral dispositions--that's what the term was short hand for in the post you responded to. So what I want to see is:

A. Definitively established evidence of behavioral differences that have had all social conditioning factored out, indicating that they are biological in nature, thus innate, and that are

B. Large and significant enough to form the basis of changes in social policy and norms around gender.

Good luck with that!

But it is your side, not mine, that is attacking people and shaming them into conformity.

To the degree that your views depend on unjustifiable and completely unscientific bigotry towards women, you deserve every bit of it.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

If you actually are a philosophy major, I would recommend either studying more or attending a better university, because it doesn't seem that you understand some rather basic elements of philosophy. Essentially nothing is universally recognized as right. There is, however, an overwhelming plurality within philosophy that recognizes that "truth" is inherently malleable.

I’m not sure what “truths” you’re requesting that I articulate. I’ve consistently maintained that I am defending a particular perspective on society, not an objectively knowable “right” way to structure society. My perspective is based on objective facts though, such as those in the linked articles above that you seem to have dismissed without even scanning. Had you glanced at the articles, you would have seen that they are stating that biological differences in brain structure between the sexes result in behavioral differences. And, to state the obvious, I’m fairly certain these researchers understand the link between biological and social influences on behaviors better than do you.

As far as policy implications are concerned, I’m not against feminist advances by any means. What I am against is the destructive, deceitful, vitriolic campaign against men that third-wave feminism has degenerated into. In regards to the Left’s oppression, if you would step outside your ideological bubble for just a moment, you would see that there is a fiercely contested ongoing debate in the West around progressives’ oppression of free speech. This debate is so prominent that President Obama has even commented on it several times.

Again – and I don’t know how I can state this any more clearly – just because you think a policy is discriminatory or a view bigoted does not mean the policy is discriminatory or the view bigoted. Your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else’s and, therefore, you should not have the right to unilaterally impose your worldview on others in the absence of widespread societal consensus.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

I like how when, near the start of this thread, you implied that my degrees were fabricated – to which I did not respond – but when I reciprocated you felt it necessary to write a paragraph about how much more philosophically knowledgeable you allegedly are next to me. I would say that if anyone is insecure, it’s not me.

I am not talking about modern philosophy, but instead the philosophical dialogue considered over the millennia. Modern anything is but a blip on the historical tapestry. Maybe the contemporary approaches will hold, but more probably they will not. In the future, most of our supposedly “right” ways of doing things, and the knowledge underpinning those approaches, will be viewed as backwards anachronisms belonging to a less sophisticated time (i.e., the same way we view many societal practices from the past today).

It is my opinion that gender relations today are, frankly, delusional. That is, however, obviously just my opinion. It should go without saying that anything one writes is simply their opinion.

There is not one fundamental difference, but rather a multitude of seemingly small differences between the sexes that, cumulatively, are likely to lead to, in the absence of social pressure, varying behavioral approaches to society. Some of these difference are obvious physical facts, such as strength differentials and different reproductive organs. Others, such as those mentioned in the articles above, are biological differences in brain makeup. These differences are, to the scientific community, not nearly so controversial as you assert. It is primarily those outside that community – as in those sans scientific knowledge – who attack these studies for ideological reasons. Finally, there are hormonal differences, which, by their very nature, interact directly with both sexes’ perception of the world and, therefore, how they interact with that world.

The campaign against speech goes beyond either of your examples. It is widespread in mainstream media and among elites, both of who are attempting to shift the social “truth” to reflect their opinions. Your examples of oppressive Australian feminists and Sommers’ suppression are not the root of the problem, but instead simply one of its outgrowths. I would argue, in fact, that the reason you perceive the wage gap as real – when almost all economists view it as an earnings gap and not a wage gap – or believe that rape culture is a real thing – when in fact instances of rape, by any standard, have been declining for decades – is because of this widespread effort on the part of these elites and media to manipulate peoples’ perspectives. That is real, scary power. Chomsky wrote about this extensively (e.g., "[p]ropaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.")

I’m not a nihilist, though I do think moral principles are much more fungible than most make out. However, the question of moral relativity should not even arise around issues where there is fundamental societal disagreement. There is currently a huge debate regarding gender relations going on which the elites and media are attempting to pretend doesn’t exist – or at least shouldn’t exist for respectable people. In other words, they are attempting to impose their opinions on everyone else as fact. Recognizing this is common sense, not embracing moral relativism.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

I am not talking about modern philosophy, but instead the philosophical dialogue considered over the millennia. Modern anything is but a blip on the historical tapestry.

Irrelevant. The point still applies: since you obviously haven't studied much philosophy, your assessment of the attitude of philosophers towards the concept of truth is hopelessly naive and simplistic.

There is not one fundamental difference, but rather a multitude of seemingly small differences between the sexes that, cumulatively, are likely to lead to, in the absence of social pressure, varying behavioral approaches to society.

Then quite being so hopelessly vague. Document the scientific basis for these claims of differences in light of what kinds of norms and policy choices ought be in place once we see what they are.

Your posting on this subject is 100% consistent with what you would be writing if your ideas had zero basis in any science and were just fashioned from cultural prejudices that are (thankfully) going the way of the dodo.

These differences are, to the scientific community, not nearly so controversial as you assert. It is primarily those outside that community – as in those sans scientific knowledge – who attack these studies for ideological reasons.

This is hilarious considering what I encounter from the biologists I've read is constant mockery of the horrible methodology used by so many bent on proving stereotypes about men and women. They haven't been opposed to the idea that there are innate differences, they just understand that it is extremely difficult to isolate them in the face of cultural noise and the prejudices of the experimentors. So I'm afraid that depending on what claims we're talking about, there is considerable controversy, and it is about science, not ideology.

I would argue, in fact, that the reason you perceive the wage gap as real. . .

There is a gap and it is caused by sexism, period. It doesn't matter what you call it. This isn't even a controversial point.

or believe that rape culture is a real thing – when in fact instances of rape, by any standard, have been declining for decades. . .

You apparently have a very poor grasp of how to draw conclusions from data. That instances of rape may be in decline has nothing to do with the very real existence of rape culture. This morning I listened to an hour long discussion about how often women are sexually harassed (80% by the age of 17) and how mothers have to tell their daughters how to respond WHEN it happens, not IF it happens. That's part of the cultural malaise that "rape culture" refers to.

If you deny that this stuff is real or not important--and far more real and important than any petty "oppression" by progressives--you are simply an immoral monster.

That is real, scary power.

Only to those who, thankfully, are losing their privilege.

Chomsky wrote about this extensively (e.g., "[p]ropaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.")

Give me a fvcking break. The odds that Chomsky would regard the progressive movement in favor of women's rights as part of something the capitalist elites are behind is about zero. You obviously are unfamiliar with his critiques of how propaganda works, and I'm willing to bet that unlike me, you don't own and haven't read a single book of his cover to cover.

There is currently a huge debate regarding gender relations going on which the elites and media are attempting to pretend doesn’t exist – or at least shouldn’t exist for respectable people.

To the extent that such debates exist, they aren't going your way and almost certainly never will.

In other words, they are attempting to impose their opinions on everyone else as fact.

I'm sure the folks who opposed gay and interracial marriage see things the same way, and with about an identical degree of moral authority and reason.

[–] Jouford 8 years ago

Please answer me this question:
If the wage gap exists, why do companies bother hiring men at all?
Most businesses operate on very small profit margins. If they could save 23 cents on the dollar per employee per hour, they would do it.
Please think before writing this drivel. Concentrate on quality, not quantity. Your essays are a reflection of your ego, nothing more.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

If the wage gap exists. . .

Stop right there. There is no "if" here, just as there is no "if" about evolution by natural selection and human caused global warming. There is no point in addressing the rest of your deluded post since you fall flat on your face right at the start.

[–] Jouford 8 years ago

You mean because you can't address it. You're bull5hit diversionary rhetoric doesn't change the question.

If companies can get away with saving up to 23% in their wage bill per person, per week, merely by hiring women, why would they hire men at all?
If the answer is blatantly obvious, tell me, I'll shut up, and I'll thank you for teaching me something new.
If you can't answer that incredibly straightforward question, it's because you're talking out of your rear end and you need to stop espousing lies and falsehoods.
Just because you want it to be true in order to fuel your obvious agenda, it doesn't mean that it is.

[–] Jouford 8 years ago

*Your

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

I’ve studied political theory and sociological theory pretty intensively, much of which overlaps with philosophy. I would say, to be honest, that it has consistently been your arguments that have come across as naïve and simplistic.

You’ve maintained that you are supposedly educated and well-versed in philosophy, as well as a host of other matters in the discussion. Yet, your responses do nothing to indicate a familiarity with any of these concepts, outside your claim of that knowledge. I’ve consistently drawn on both theoretical and scientific evidence in my posts, while your posts have consisted almost entirely of selective attacks on my positions, with an underlying feeling that you either did not understand my entire post or that you are ignoring facts and arguments I raise that your ideologically driven narrative does not have easy answers for. I’ve provided an incredible amount of detail in comparison to you, yet you continue to ask for more and criticize my conclusions and data using specious and poorly explained logic. Again, essentially every claim you’ve made sounds to me like it could just as easily have been coming out of the mouth of a parrot who sat in a SJW / feminist organizing session for a few hours.

Literally every link I included a few posts back had scientists stating that biological differences in brain structure between the sexes result in behavioral differences. And, again, this was from a very brief Google search, indicating that this type of data and dialogue is easily available for anyone willing to take their intellectual blinders off.

The way the "wage gap" is politicized today as the supposed result of sexism has been widely discredited by a host of academics, including many who lean left. In fact, almost the entirety of the earnings gap can be explained by personal choices.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

I would never deny that rectifying any and all instances of sexual abuse or violence is extraordinarily important. However, creating societal paranoia and conflict over easily debunkable statistics by manipulating them is also hugely problematic. In regards to your “discussion” – whatever that means (i.e., was it between your neighbor and the mailman or two senators) – just because you heard something doesn’t make it true. I shouldn’t have to explain this.

You’ve argued several times now that the underlying reason I’m making the points I am making is because I am supposedly concerned about losing my “privilege.” The truth is I have three degrees from eminent educational institutions and live quite comfortably. Regardless of how the debate around gender relations turns out, my lifestyle will not be substantially impacted. Also, related to this, you come across as willfully ignorant every time you argue that the debate around gender relations is over. If anything, it has intensified in the last several years.

In regards to Chomsky, I’ve actually read his work very extensively and have seen him speak multiple times. In fact, when I was doing my first Master’s degree, in Cambridge, I discussed the topic of media manipulation with him over dinner after one of his talks. Independent of whether he made the link himself, there are analogues in his writings to what we are experiencing today concerning the established elites vis-à-vis various systems of indoctrination such as the media and educational systems. Anyone concerned about not being manipulated by those in power should be concerned about this.

Furthermore, in any event, the idea that the women’s movement could be construed as consistent with capitalist oppression is fairly straightforward. It’s actually borderline simplistic: one of the primary outcomes of the women’s movement is that the workforce essentially doubled, meaning that there are now essentially double the people that the capitalist superstructure can more effectively exploit.

It’s a standard cop-out to bring up the supposed link between those who did not support gay or interracial marriage (or any civil rights cause for that matter) and those who do not support the latest iteration of the women’s movement. Feminism, however, as stated in my initial post, is no longer about equality. It is about imposing a societal system that glorifies women and suborns men, to make up for the thousands of years that women were supposedly oppressed.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

I’ve consistently drawn on both theoretical and scientific evidence in my posts. . .

No, you have not, not even once. The only citations you have made to scientific sources had nothing at all to say about the thesis your OP is putting forward. Your entire history in this thread is one of unrelenting BS.

. . .yet you continue to ask for more and criticize my conclusions and data using specious and poorly explained logic.

Logic that you have yet to refute, or even attempt to refute.

I keep asking for more data and more specifics because it is painfully obvious that you are utterly full of hot air and zero substance. There is absolutely no sign of anyone who cares about scholarship and academic seriousness in a single one of your posts.

You are simply pretending to be educated and informed about these values, regardless of what pieces of paper your wealth has managed to purchase.

Literally every link I included a few posts back had scientists stating that biological differences in brain structure between the sexes result in behavioral differences.

Let me hold your hand, here, seeing as you have enormous difficulties when it comes to reasoning from facts to valid conclusions:

A. Were those behavioral differences of a significance and character to justify changing our norms and social policies around gender? No. If I'm wrong, cite the specifics. Otherwise, your citations are utterly and completely meaningless.

B. Did a single one of those studies (one of which, ahem, was about mice, not humans), factor in the degree to which human brains are shaped and changed by social conditioning? Nope. In fact, one of them found that measurable sex differences were reduced in cases of younger subjects. So once again, your citations are utterly and completely meaningless.

The way the "wage gap" is politicized today as the supposed result of sexism has been widely discredited by a host of academics, including many who lean left.

Complete and utter BS. You have about as much credibility on this issue as people who think the world is 10,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together.

There are scientists--people with advanced degrees, just like you!--that anyone could cite who really do think the world is 10,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. Same goes for economists who deny the wage gap. Cranks exist at all levels.

In fact, almost the entirety of the earnings gap can be explained by personal choices.

Someone who actually had a grasp of any approach to valid social theory knows that choices are made in contexts, and that contexts constrain and shape those choices.

Someone who actually had a grasp of valid social theory would be very keen to address and understand those contexts.

To the degree that someone had both a grasp of valid social theory and actually was ethical, he or she would want to change those contexts to offer more freedom of choice for all genders.

You, obviously, are neither any one of these someone's.

However, creating societal paranoia and conflict over easily debunkable statistics by manipulating them is also hugely problematic.

Until you document that this is actually happening in the real world in any significant degree, I'll just (very safely) conclude that the only paranoia is yours and yours alone.

In regards to your “discussion” – whatever that means (i.e., was it between your neighbor and the mailman or two senators) – just because you heard something doesn’t make it true.

It was a discussion on public radio between a journalist and two academics. Forgive me if I find them far more credible than you. Unlike you, they at least had traces of empathy towards fellow humans.

Independent of whether he made the link himself, there are analogues in his writings to what we are experiencing today concerning the established elites vis-à-vis various systems of indoctrination such as the media and educational systems. Anyone concerned about not being manipulated by those in power should be concerned about this.

I'll start being concerned about manipulation in the context of your thesis when you can start documenting it. Right now, all we get from you is vague, completely unsubstantiated paranoia. It kind of says more about you than objective reality.

It’s a standard cop-out to bring up the supposed link between those who did not support gay or interracial marriage (or any civil rights cause for that matter) and those who do not support the latest iteration of the women’s movement.

No, it isn't a cop out. It is actually entirely consistent with the spin you've tried to put on the issue where there are no objective moral truths, just changing norms mediated by social forces wielding political power.

You guys, like the anti-gay and anti-black bigots, just happen to be on the side that got defeated. So of course you create a narrative where the victors were merely bullying you rather than enforcing superior moral codes.

It is about imposing a societal system that glorifies women and suborns men, to make up for the thousands of years that women were supposedly oppressed.

Can the so-called academic and Very Serious Scholar please back up this claim with citations from reliable sources?

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

First, “my wealth” didn’t have anything to do with my degrees. I actually dropped out of high school because of my working class background, started college five years late, and worked full-time through my undergraduate degree. I only mention this because it is another standard attack of SJWs / feminists to argue that anyone who disagrees with them somehow doesn’t understand adversity. Also, just because I don’t hold your views doesn’t mean I don’t have empathy for others. I just disagree about the way we should address societal problems.

Second, I care very much about academic scholarship – indeed, I’ve devoted the majority of my life to it at levels much higher than it seems you could even begin to be taken seriously at.

Again, you’re continuing to ignore significant portions of my posts – e.g., the capitalist oppression angle or the Freakonomics podcast – and harp on points I presume you feel more confident in arguing.

As I’ve already stated, more than once, it is a not a single difference between the sexes that makes them see the world differently, but the cumulative effect of many differences, just one of which is brain makeup. Also, I was never arguing for policy based on these differences. That was entirely your interpretation. What I’ve consistently maintained is that in the absence of policy forcing people to pretend these differences don’t exist, both sexes would pursue different paths than they are today, and, probably, be more content.

As to your point concerning sociological influences on behavior, of course they are present, but they are not the whole picture. There are obvious underlying biological differences, which all the above studies note, including the two you criticized.

In regards to the earnings gap, listen to the podcast. In regards to societal context in the making of personal choices – and my supposed ignorance concerning it – I’ve studied sociological theory with some of the best sociological thinkers alive. Of course sociological factors influence personal choices, but there are also underlying, baseline tendencies that are present even in the absence of societal pressure. Furthermore, as the earnings gap is due almost exclusively to personal choices – regardless of whether or not those choices are influenced by sociological factors – it is extraordinarily disingenuous for the Left to continue arguing that the earnings gap is due to workplace discrimination.

In the same way that the “wage gap” statistics are being manipulated for political ends, so too are the sexual assault statistics. There is a huge debate going on around this, which, given your seeming lack of knowledge about facts that disagree with your worldview, I guess I’m not too surprised you don’t know about.

The “rape culture” hysteria today is due primarily to elites controlling the narrative and those sociological tendencies you assert to understand (i.e., in colloquial terms, people jumping on the wagon and believing what those in positions of authority tell them) the same way as was the supposed child molestation epidemic in the 1980s everyone was so sure about.

Your position in response to my argument on my supposed bigotry would actually be plausible, if feminism hadn’t devolved into an active, evidence-free campaign against men (and women) who don’t toe their line. The two links below, in addition to countless others, show this.

https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Law-Professor-Open-Letter-May-16-2016.pdf

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/28_harvard_law_profs_blast_new_sexual_assault_policy_as_stacked_against_the

[–] dullboy9000 8 years ago

DFTT, please, guys.

[–] A-to-ZZZ 8 years ago

Since all activity on a film page increases it's moviemeter rating, you can make an exception in this case. 

http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

[–] ilon 7 years ago

So what I want to see is:

A. Definitively established evidence of behavioral differences that have had all social conditioning factored out, indicating that they are biological in nature, thus innate, and that are

Simon Baron-Cohen while making research about the autistic brain came to the conclusion that the are in fact behavioral differences in new born babies. All social conditioning factored out. He wasn't searching for it, but he found it.

[–] Jouford 8 years ago

Yep. Like most feminists and SJWs, he came armed with ad hominem attacks and anger.

[–] CrabbyJack 7 years ago

You people have lost the culture wars.

How did that election on November work out for "you people"?

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

Oh, the election where the candidate most people voted for lost because of ancient anti-democratic quirks in the election system? The election where protestors outnumbered attendees at the inauguration? That election? What of it?

[–] cubancigar11 8 years ago

Faustus5 is a paid troll. Ignore.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

Yeah, I know, but some relevant issues are actually being raised, so I thought I may as well respond.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

I'm sure in your delusional, matriarchal world, women would be entitled to treat men ANY WAY they want. After all, men deserve it right? Even though, most men before the industrial age were simply products of their environment... like most women. For that reason, it is completely bigoted, unjust and ignorant of us to presume to know why they did what they did and most of all, hate them for it.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

I'm sure in your delusional, matriarchal world, women would be entitled to treat men ANY WAY they want. After all, men deserve it right?

No, that's just an element of YOUR delusional, misogynist world. Thanks for continuing to be one of the most pathetic, ignorant losers on the IMDB.

[–] cubancigar11 8 years ago

Two things:
1. The Hindu religion is extremely gynocentric. The dharma ascribed to men is to be a protector and provider at all costs while dharma ascribed to women is simply to be faithful.

2. The ancient concept/system of Hinduism died a long time back (due to muslim invasion, destruction of Hindu libraries, and then reinvention of Hinduism under orientalist British). Those who study it argue that it is much more detailed (at least the judiciary) and judicious. Unfortunately it is not followed even in India, which copies one law after the other from the west.

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

Good points, though I meant to employ the concept of dharma as a rhetorical device rather than saying we should adhere to Hinduism (i.e., I was using it to bring up the idea of roles for everything in the universe, not specifically the Hindu conception of those roles). I'm actually fairly skeptical of organized religion.

It is good to clarify, though, thanks.

[–] dullboy9000 8 years ago

Two things:
1. The Hindu religion is extremely gynocentric.

The whole world is extremely gynocentric.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

And now, women are refusing to give men anything for worshiping them or loving them or respecting them. HeForShe says everything. Give up your life but god help you if you want a woman to respect you like you want to be respected.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

...dharma...Though difficult to translate, the essence of the word is that everything has a role to play, and that those roles are in turn aligned with the order of the universe.
_________________
Why are you coming across as pretentious pseudo-intellectual snob with a need to dress up your post? I don't disagree with what you have written; but why the pompous sounding manner? You arrogantly attacked the first response you got, as though they were disagreeing with you. DHARMA does not need to be difficult to translate, that is only your interpretation to sound impressive. It is PURPOSE. Nothing complex about it.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

[–] distant-skies 8 years ago

Purpose? Stop being pretentious. Dharma was a character in the sitcom Dharma and Greg!

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] leithwalk 8 years ago

this faustus5 seriously believes in the gender pay gap despite all the evidence that is just fabricated propaganda. he's also quick to resort to censorship reporting every post he doesn't agree with.

[–] distant-skies 7 years ago

Then he should be banned for frivolous reporting.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] johnj-60801 8 years ago

I have absolutely no desire to dress up my posts. I’ve spent the majority of my professional life writing in academic contexts, where the style that I write with is widely accepted. I can’t control how I come across for it.

How I understand the word “dharma” is that it has no direct English translation, which is why I worded my introduction of it the way I did. It is my interpretation that simply equating dharma with purpose misses one of the concept’s fundamental tenets (i.e., that there is an order to the universe, and that, according to that order of the universe, people have specific roles to play). While facially it may appear that this is analogous to purpose, I think it in fact corresponds more closely with essence, or, more colloquially, nature.

There is a famous Hindu parable that I was told when learning about dharma which helped me understand it:

One day a sadhu went to the river to bathe. There he noticed a scorpion struggling in the water. Scorpions cannot swim and the sadhu knew that if he did not save the scorpion, it would drown...

Therefore, carefully picking up the scorpion, the monk rescued it from drowning and was just about to set it down gently on land when the scorpion stung his finger. In pain, the sadhu instinctively flung his hand and the scorpion went flying, back into the river. As soon as the sadhu regained his composure from the sting, he again lifted the scorpion out of the water. Again, before he could set the scorpion safely on land, the creature stung him. This drama went on for several minutes as the sadhu continued to try to save the life of the drowning scorpion and the scorpion continued to sting his savior's hand before reaching the freedom of the riverbank.

A hunter watched as the saint carefully and gingerly lifted the creature out of the water, only to fling it back in as he convulsed in pain from each fresh sting. Finally, the hunter said to the sadhu, "Forgive me for my frankness, but it is clear that the scorpion is simply going to continue to sting you each and every time you try to carry it to safety. Why don't you give up and just let it drown?"

The sadhu replied: "My dear child, the scorpion is not stinging me out of malice or evil intent. Just as it is the water's nature to make me wet, so it is the scorpion's nature to sting. He doesn't realize that I am carrying him to safety. That is a level of conscious comprehension greater than what his brain can achieve. But, just as it is the scorpion's nature to sting, so it is my nature to save. Just as he is not leaving his nature, why should I leave my nature? My dharma is to help any creature of any kind - human or animal. Why should I let a small scorpion rob me of the divine nature which I have cultivated through years of sadhana?"

In this context, it seems that dharma extends beyond purpose. It is not the scorpion's purpose to sting, but it is its nature. Similarly, it is not the sadhu's purpose to save the scorpion, but it is his nature to do so.

Faustus5 was pretty transparently attacking my post, which I think is fairly easy to see if you take a brief look at his/her user history.

[–] Takeshi-K 7 years ago

johnj you destroyed faustus on every single point.

[–] secure-h 7 years ago

Yup. Her initial response was a sarcastic: "Women are just getting too uppity"

She quickly realized she was in over her head as she was parroting her left party line with a BS quip we all have heard for decades. SJW's simply repeat what they are told and what they tell each other within a vacuum.

They are responsible to a large extent for the results of this past election which horrified them.

There is a good interview Of Jordan Peterson by Joe Rogan about why and how the left perpetuate this agenda: Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE

665: Neighbour of the Beast

[–] npiazza91 7 years ago

Yeah John detroyed. We need more people like John to be honest. I assume he's conservative like myself...if not, that's fine too. People like me are willing to work with the left and show them that we need to come together as on and appreciate our differences. There ARE differences. A Fire Fighter is different from a doctor. A teacher is different from a soldier. Our differences make the world go around, but what the progressives are trying to...I don't even know what the heck they're trying to do, because they contradict themselves so much. Logic fail all around. People like John, people like Milo, people like Lauren Southern...these people need to keep doing what they're doing. Progressive sheep continue to get lied to by the media instead of thinking with their heads. It's really sad, because I believe most of them are good people. They just think we're all racist, homophobic and misogynistic, because that's all any of them tell me. Now they're trying to use the term PC against us, saying that we get PC over Merry Christmas and whatnot, but they fail to realize they are using the term incorrectly. When they are proven wrong all they say is "you're triggered", which by the way, is a word that means when people with PTSD and anxiety have major traumatic episodes. How do we help these people? Seriously.

[–] amandaef2000-917-397520 7 years ago

Here is my take. I think the sexual revolution ruined women by saying women can be sexually like men. Men sadly caused the early feminist movement (before the 1960s). Women in the 1800s and 1900 did not want to marry drunks, they did not want to be a poor woman whose husband ran off etc. That stuff happened. I also came to the conclusion rich men will want the nonrich men etc under their thumb. You would too if you were a rich man. I have no intention of wasting my time or money sitting in a theatre to see this (even if the director is a good looking woman). Some men are mgtow for good reasons and do not want to be in a marriage that rips them off. Other men are just bitter when the woman they want rejects them or a woman leaves them because he mistreats her. There is plenty of blame to go around.