(Nov 14, 2017 03:19 AM)Syne Wrote: I said "sociology" not "social sciences". You know there's a difference, right?
The social sciences include, but are not limited to, economics, political science, human geography, demography, management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics.” Social Science (wikipedia.org)
Sociology borrows from all of the social sciences. None of which, are independent from sociology because as you pointed out earlier, we’re humans, and we’re a highly social species.
Syne Wrote:It may be inevitable.
Nah, you’re confusing biology with social facts.
Syne Wrote:Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.
(Nov 14, 2017 03:19 AM)Syne Wrote: I said "sociology" not "social sciences". You know there's a difference, right?
The social sciences include, but are not limited to, economics, political science, human geography, demography, management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics.” Social Science (wikipedia.org)
Sociology borrows from all of the social sciences. None of which, are independent from sociology because as you pointed out earlier, we’re humans, and we’re a highly social species.
So you really do think deriding sociology derides all those. That's ignorant as all get out.
Sociology HAS to borrow from everything it can, due to its lack of unique methodology. The only reason anyone can say they're not independent is because sociologists have just proclaimed them subsumed...in order to gain respectability on their individual successes.
It's cute how you conflate sociology with social though. Like a child really.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:It may be inevitable.
Nah, you’re confusing biology with social facts.
Ah, more sociology nonsense. Notice how that term completely misuses "fact" by defining it as "values, norms, etc.". Those are actually opinions.
Is sociology your religion?
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.
Aww, poor guy. Small sample size.
Yeah, exactly the type of miserable misandrists who get off on trying to emasculate men. Keep trying though. It only demonstrates why more women aren't in power. Thinking you have to use ad hominems in lieu of competency is a problem.
C CNov 14, 2017 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: Nov 14, 2017 06:20 AM by C C.)
RE: Since individual women would be plugged into administrative offices that were created during the patriarchal era, and thereby subject to the template of standards, traditions, advice, policies, strategies and role-playing expectations of those offices which were likewise formulated and entrenched during the reign of men... Then I don't see how a female leader could fully get "in touch" with and exercise any supposed alternative, "matriarchal worldview" that would end or feature fewer wars, anyway. As _X_ female leader would be constrained by those pre-existing institutions, forms of management and systemic evaluation of the quality of that management under _X_ leader.
The movement's version of the concept, then, from its own advocates and reviewers:
INTRO: Since most patriarchal socialized women and men are not able to think out of patriarchal norms, they don't get the meaning of the term 'matriarchy'. Most people believe mistakenly, that matriarchy is a simple reversal of patriarchy: What men do now would be taken over by women. Just an exchange of roles. I will throw light on this fundamental fallacy...
- - -
Carol P. Christ: [...] Heide Göttner-Abendroth rejects the common definition of matriarchy as “mother-rule” with the connotation of “female domination.” Instead she argues that matriarchies are societies that honor mothers and consider care and generosity–values they associate with motherhood–to be the highest values. In affirming values associated with motherhood, matriarchal societies are not essentialist. They do not affirm that only women can be nurturers of life. Quite the opposite, they assert that the highest role for anyone–male or female or other–is to nurture life. This is so far from the way we think, that it will be easy to misconstrue what is being said.
Matriarchal societies [...] are egalitarian, they are matrilineal (tracing descent through the motherline), and they are usually matrilocal (with women and sometimes men staying in the mother clan). In matriarchal societies, men are not dominated, and as anthropologists have long understood, men do hold power as brothers and uncles. However, men do not dominate, because mothers and grandmothers also hold power. Together great-uncles and grandmothers create an egalitarian system where everyone’s voice can be heard. The power to dominate is not held to be the highest value.
In matriarchal societies sex and love really are free because they are not tied up with providing for a family or caring for children. The matriarchal clan remains at the center of life; children are brought up by the maternal clan, including mothers, aunts and grandmothers, brothers and uncles. Lovers are free to come together and to part.
Land is held by the female clans and inequalities are erased by a wide-spread practice of gift-giving. Those who have more hold parties and feasts where what they have is shared rather than hoarded. In matriarchal societies the earth is generally understood to be a Great and Giving Mother and her generous gift of Life is celebrated in rituals that celebrate her as the Source of Life.
In some parts of the world matriarchies have been superseded by patriarchy, but not everywhere. Matriarchal societies still exist today in the Himalayas and in parts of Indonesia, as well as in areas in Africa and the Americas.
[...] In Crete I learned a different lesson. I met people who love to give and who consider giving to others on a daily basis to be a part of life. The people I met also enjoyed receiving. For them life is a circle that includes self and other. Self-denial was not a part of it. To give is to live. But so is to receive. Recognizing the two together is, I believe, the essence of the matriarchal worldview.[*] (Matriarchy: Daring to use the word)
- - -
Tom DeMott: [...] What first strikes those who read how [social anthropologist] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen defined matriarchy is this: It makes no reference to a hierarchical structure in which women occupy positions in the upper echelons. In the pages that follow, Bennholdt-Thomsen's definition addresses this apparent contradiction by explaining that a modern day matriarchal society-by its nature-would never permit such hierarchies.
This, Bennholdt-Thomsen tells us, would only invert the worst element of the warlike and destructive male patriarchy. "Lastly, it is worthwhile mentioning what the experts on matriarchy or non-patriarchal relations accentuate: The search [for a matriarchy] does not imply inverting the common reality, changing it for the domination of the other sex, in this case domination by women. The matriarchal structure, by definition, excludes this type of power relations."
What Bennholdt-Thomsen is implying is this: According to her definition of matriarchy, men and women share equal amounts of power. And though Bennholdt-Thomsen does not provide any further detail about men's role in a matriarchal society, Göttner-Abendroth, does: A woman's relationship with her husband is economically based, while her relationship with her lover is founded on emotion. "After marriage," Göttner-Abendroth writes, "the young man temporarily leaves the house of his mother, but does not have to go very far. In the evening, he goes to the neighboring house where his wife lives, and he returns at dawn. This form of marriage is called visiting marriage, and is restricted to the night. The matriarchal man has no right to live in the house of his wife." http://matriarchy.info/index.php?option=...&Itemid=83
EXCERPTS: Matriarchy is not the mirror image of patriarchy, where women rule over men - as common prejudice wants. Instead, matriarchies are mother-centered societies, and they build on maternal values: nurturing, nurturing, caring, peacekeeping; i.e., motherhood in the broadest sense. These values apply to all, for mothers and non-mothers, for women and men alike. In matriarchal societies, "equality" does not mean equalizing differences. Natural differences that exist between the sexes and generations are respected and honored, but they are not used to create hierarchies (egalitarian society). [...] At the political level, decisions are made only by consensus, that is unanimity. The consensus finding begins as a consultation in the individual clan houses and will continue at the village or regional level as needed....
footnote
[*] (flip-side) Randomly selected instances of the expression "patriarchal worldview" in literature:
His remark, which comes not many days after the Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, shocked the nation by asking agitating nurses of his state to sit in the shade so that they didn't get dark and hurt their marital prospects, betrays the patriarchal worldview that complements a fanatical brand of politics. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+countr...0407889605
In practice that generally means oppressing women and reversing the rights that they have gained even under the highly flawed postcolonial Arab state system. In the crudest patriarchal worldview, protecting the country means defending the home and family, and especially 'protecting' women. And that, in turn, means men and male-dominated society have to control and repress women, especially when it comes to sexual and domestic rights. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brotherho...0323559544
Cultural safety nursing arose out of social protest movements of the 1980s. This was the time when issues of identity, gender, and racism were brought to the fore by different groups and challenged a dominant patriarchal worldview. Years of attempts by Maori to maintain their rights and recognition of sovereignty set out in the 1840 te Tiriti o Waitangi were overshadowed by the dominance of western patriarchal views of how the world and the people in it should be. This led to inequity in health care where Maori were unable to enjoy the same level of care as Pakeha. A primary aim of cultural safety was to draw attention to the power health professionals had in determining health care outcomes for people using health services. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Making+a+...0290856191
Popovic's translation provides no such remarks. More precisely, he compounded the distortion of the words and meanings of the story, translating in contradiction to the original text. Popovic did not adequately understand Lazarevic's story and that is why he interpreted it incorrectly. Just like other interpreters, Pavle Popovic burdened Lazarevic's story with his own cultural baggage, which was centered upon a patriarchal worldview, in spite of the story's more liberal and free-spirited nature. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/On+the+En...0332657788
Allen argues that these "tribal worldviews are more similar to one another than any of them are to the patriarchal worldview, and they have a better record of survival." These ancient cultures assume collaborative, rather than individualized or isolated, teaching and learning. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teaching+...0111848874
Some Catholics may feel that such devotions no longer hold a place in the life of faith as understood since the Second Vatican Council. But recent scholars have pointed to several key ideas related to Marian apparitions that have a modern appeal. Among them are:
* the role of personal religious experience in relation to the church's public worship,
* the need for new symbols to express each new generation of the faithful,
* the need for the feminine presence within a patriarchal worldview,
* the role of "apocalyptic" or hidden mysteries within a society that is perhaps too comfortable and self-assured,
RE: Since individual women would be plugged into administrative offices that were created during the patriarchal era, and thereby subject to the template of standards, traditions, advice, policies, strategies and role-playing expectations of those offices which were likewise formulated and entrenched during the reign of men... Then I don't see how a female leader could fully get "in touch" with and exercise any supposed alternative, "matriarchal worldview" that would end or feature fewer wars, anyway. As _X_ female leader would be constrained by those pre-existing institutions, forms of management and systemic evaluation of the quality of that management under _X_ leader.
The movement's version of the concept, then, from its own advocates and reviewers:
INTRO: Since most patriarchal socialized women and men are not able to think out of patriarchal norms, they don't get the meaning of the term 'matriarchy'. Most people believe mistakenly, that matriarchy is a simple reversal of patriarchy: What men do now would be taken over by women. Just an exchange of roles. I will throw light on this fundamental fallacy...
- - -
Carol P. Christ: [...] Heide Göttner-Abendroth rejects the common definition of matriarchy as “mother-rule” with the connotation of “female domination.” Instead she argues that matriarchies are societies that honor mothers and consider care and generosity–values they associate with motherhood–to be the highest values. In affirming values associated with motherhood, matriarchal societies are not essentialist. They do not affirm that only women can be nurturers of life. Quite the opposite, they assert that the highest role for anyone–male or female or other–is to nurture life. This is so far from the way we think, that it will be easy to misconstrue what is being said.
Matriarchal societies [...] are egalitarian, they are matrilineal (tracing descent through the motherline), and they are usually matrilocal (with women and sometimes men staying in the mother clan). In matriarchal societies, men are not dominated, and as anthropologists have long understood, men do hold power as brothers and uncles. However, men do not dominate, because mothers and grandmothers also hold power. Together great-uncles and grandmothers create an egalitarian system where everyone’s voice can be heard. The power to dominate is not held to be the highest value.
In matriarchal societies sex and love really are free because they are not tied up with providing for a family or caring for children. The matriarchal clan remains at the center of life; children are brought up by the maternal clan, including mothers, aunts and grandmothers, brothers and uncles. Lovers are free to come together and to part.
Land is held by the female clans and inequalities are erased by a wide-spread practice of gift-giving. Those who have more hold parties and feasts where what they have is shared rather than hoarded. In matriarchal societies the earth is generally understood to be a Great and Giving Mother and her generous gift of Life is celebrated in rituals that celebrate her as the Source of Life.
In some parts of the world matriarchies have been superseded by patriarchy, but not everywhere. Matriarchal societies still exist today in the Himalayas and in parts of Indonesia, as well as in areas in Africa and the Americas.
[...] In Crete I learned a different lesson. I met people who love to give and who consider giving to others on a daily basis to be a part of life. The people I met also enjoyed receiving. For them life is a circle that includes self and other. Self-denial was not a part of it. To give is to live. But so is to receive. Recognizing the two together is, I believe, the essence of the matriarchal worldview.
[*] (Matriarchy: Daring to use the word)
- - -
Tom DeMott: [...] What first strikes those who read how [social anthropologist] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen defined matriarchy is this: It makes no reference to a hierarchical structure in which women occupy positions in the upper echelons. In the pages that follow, Bennholdt-Thomsen's definition addresses this apparent contradiction by explaining that a modern day matriarchal society-by its nature-would never permit such hierarchies.
This, Bennholdt-Thomsen tells us, would only invert the worst element of the warlike and destructive male patriarchy. "Lastly, it is worthwhile mentioning what the experts on matriarchy or non-patriarchal relations accentuate: The search [for a matriarchy] does not imply inverting the common reality, changing it for the domination of the other sex, in this case domination by women. The matriarchal structure, by definition, excludes this type of power relations."
What Bennholdt-Thomsen is implying is this: According to her definition of matriarchy, men and women share equal amounts of power. And though Bennholdt-Thomsen does not provide any further detail about men's role in a matriarchal society, Göttner-Abendroth, does: A woman's relationship with her husband is economically based, while her relationship with her lover is founded on emotion. "After marriage," Göttner-Abendroth writes, "the young man temporarily leaves the house of his mother, but does not have to go very far. In the evening, he goes to the neighboring house where his wife lives, and he returns at dawn. This form of marriage is called visiting marriage, and is restricted to the night. The matriarchal man has no right to live in the house of his wife." http://matriarchy.info/index.php?option=...&Itemid=83
EXCERPTS: Matriarchy is not the mirror image of patriarchy, where women rule over men - as common prejudice wants. Instead, matriarchies are mother-centered societies, and they build on maternal values: nurturing, nurturing, caring, peacekeeping; i.e., motherhood in the broadest sense. These values apply to all, for mothers and non-mothers, for women and men alike. In matriarchal societies, "equality" does not mean equalizing differences. Natural differences that exist between the sexes and generations are respected and honored, but they are not used to create hierarchies (egalitarian society). [...] At the political level, decisions are made only by consensus, that is unanimity. The consensus finding begins as a consultation in the individual clan houses and will continue at the village or regional level as needed....
footnote
[*](flip-side) Randomly selected instances of the expression "patriarchal worldview" in literature:
His remark, which comes not many days after the Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, shocked the nation by asking agitating nurses of his state to sit in the shade so that they didn't get dark and hurt their marital prospects, betrays the patriarchal worldview that complements a fanatical brand of politics. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+countr...0407889605
In practice that generally means oppressing women and reversing the rights that they have gained even under the highly flawed postcolonial Arab state system. In the crudest patriarchal worldview, protecting the country means defending the home and family, and especially 'protecting' women. And that, in turn, means men and male-dominated society have to control and repress women, especially when it comes to sexual and domestic rights. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brotherho...0323559544
Cultural safety nursing arose out of social protest movements of the 1980s. This was the time when issues of identity, gender, and racism were brought to the fore by different groups and challenged a dominant patriarchal worldview. Years of attempts by Maori to maintain their rights and recognition of sovereignty set out in the 1840 te Tiriti o Waitangi were overshadowed by the dominance of western patriarchal views of how the world and the people in it should be. This led to inequity in health care where Maori were unable to enjoy the same level of care as Pakeha. A primary aim of cultural safety was to draw attention to the power health professionals had in determining health care outcomes for people using health services. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Making+a+...0290856191
Popovic's translation provides no such remarks. More precisely, he compounded the distortion of the words and meanings of the story, translating in contradiction to the original text. Popovic did not adequately understand Lazarevic's story and that is why he interpreted it incorrectly. Just like other interpreters, Pavle Popovic burdened Lazarevic's story with his own cultural baggage, which was centered upon a patriarchal worldview, in spite of the story's more liberal and free-spirited nature. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/On+the+En...0332657788
Allen argues that these "tribal worldviews are more similar to one another than any of them are to the patriarchal worldview, and they have a better record of survival." These ancient cultures assume collaborative, rather than individualized or isolated, teaching and learning. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teaching+...0111848874
Some Catholics may feel that such devotions no longer hold a place in the life of faith as understood since the Second Vatican Council. But recent scholars have pointed to several key ideas related to Marian apparitions that have a modern appeal. Among them are:
* the role of personal religious experience in relation to the church's public worship,
* the need for new symbols to express each new generation of the faithful,
* the need for the feminine presence within a patriarchal worldview,
* the role of "apocalyptic" or hidden mysteries within a society that is perhaps too comfortable and self-assured,
question. psychology anthropology...
is not the opposition to matriarchy the very definition of support for patriarchy ?
thus selling the fear of some strange facist type world where women are the leaders,
is in fact saying the current patriarchy is in fact a strange facist like model ?
seems fairly obviouse.
all those men selling the fear of a matriarchy are crying out "I like my facist patriarchy system dont change it"...
YazataNov 14, 2017 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: Nov 14, 2017 05:26 PM by Yazata.)
(Oct 31, 2017 06:39 PM)C C Wrote: Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?
I think that males are more prone to physical confrontations. They are more apt to fight hand-to-hand and to engage in crimes of violence. And yes, I think that there are probably evolutionary reasons for that, since males tended to be the hunters and fighters in paleolithic bands when hominins were still evolving. Their strength and ability to fight was a survival characteristic not only for them personally, but for the females in their group as well.
There's a reason (as every high-school boy knows) why even today's females favor the good-looking hunky guys who can take care of themselves (and the girl too) rather than the timid, studious, skinny geeks (unless the latter are tech billionaires). Sexual selection is very real and in a way, females have bred males to be what they are. (And now they are shrieking about it.)
The thing is, national leaders don't engage in physical confrontations. They order armies to do it for them. So an ability and willingness to physically fight isn't all that relevant when we are talking about leaders issuing orders from behind desks.
As everyone knows, girls can be exceedingly mean, often to each other (and to men that they don't find sexually attractive). Women in politics can be exceedingly mean to anyone that they perceive is thwarting them. I don't think that it's correct to imagine that females are the more moral sex.
(Nov 30, 2015 08:56 PM)Yazata Wrote: Personally, I don't consider all of the so-called "social sciences" to really be sciences. I don't consider sociology to be a science, though I'm inclined to think that psychology and economics can sometimes come close and represent problem cases.
Do you think it qualifies as pseudoscience?
(Nov 14, 2017 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: I think that males are more prone to physical confrontations. They are more apt to fight hand-to-hand and to engage in crimes of violence. And yes, I think that there are probably evolutionary reasons for that, since males tended to be the hunters and fighters in paleolithic bands when hominins were still evolving. Their strength and ability to fight was a survival characteristic not only for them personally, but for the females in their group as well.
There's a reason (as every high-school boy knows) why even today's females favor the good-looking hunky guys who can take care of themselves (and the girl too) rather than the timid, studious, skinny geeks (unless the latter are tech billionaires). Sexual selection is very real and in a way, females have bred males to be what they are. (And now they are shrieking about it.)
Are you saying that environmental factors don’t play a role in aggressive behavior, and that it’s purely genetic, or hormonal?
Yazata Wrote:The thing is, national leaders don't engage in physical confrontations. They order armies to do it for them. So an ability and willingness to physically fight isn't all that relevant when we are talking about leaders issuing orders from behind desks.
Maybe not but aggressive behavior does escalate things a bit, don’t you think?
"The US president, Donald Trump, said in a tweet on Sunday that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had insulted him by calling him "old" and said he would never call Kim "short and fat".
"Reckless remarks by an old lunatic like Trump will never scare us or stop our advance. On the contrary, all this makes us more sure that our choice to promote economic construction at the same time as building up our nuclear force is all the more righteous, and it pushes us to speed up the effort to complete our nuclear force."
Yazata Wrote:As everyone knows, girls can be exceedingly mean, often to each other (and to men that they don't find sexually attractive). Women in politics can be exceedingly mean to anyone that they perceive is thwarting them. I don't think that it's correct to imagine that females are the more moral sex.
YazataNov 14, 2017 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: Nov 14, 2017 09:26 PM by Yazata.)
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 30, 2015 08:56 PM)Yazata Wrote: Personally, I don't consider all of the so-called "social sciences" to really be sciences. I don't consider sociology to be a science, though I'm inclined to think that psychology and economics can sometimes come close and represent problem cases.
Do you think it qualifies as pseudoscience?
Depends on how you define 'pseudoscience'. But in general, yes. That doesn't mean that it's totally without value. I just see it as more akin to politics than to physics. To the extent that it purports to be 'science' and to have the same kind of epistemological authority as physics or molecular biology, I'd call sociology 'pseudoscience'. It's hugely value-laden and in my opinion more productive of rhetoric than of truth. Obviously, that doesn't mean that it is always wrong. But it does suggest that it lacks the kind of reliable methods that make so much of science more probably right than wrong.
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 14, 2017 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: I think that males are more prone to physical confrontations. They are more apt to fight hand-to-hand and to engage in crimes of violence. And yes, I think that there are probably evolutionary reasons for that, since males tended to be the hunters and fighters in paleolithic bands when hominins were still evolving. Their strength and ability to fight was a survival characteristic not only for them personally, but for the females in their group as well.
There's a reason (as every high-school boy knows) why even today's females favor the good-looking hunky guys who can take care of themselves (and the girl too) rather than the timid, studious, skinny geeks (unless the latter are tech billionaires). Sexual selection is very real and in a way, females have bred males to be what they are. (And now they are shrieking about it.)
Are you saying that environmental factors don’t play a role in aggressive behavior
No, of course not.
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: and that it’s purely genetic, or hormonal?
I think that 'aggressive behavior' (that needs defining) often manifests itself differently in males and females. That's probably more true in face-to-face confrontations than in more impersonal decisions made from behind a desk. In other words, male and female government and business leaders are more likely to behave similarly than male and female drunks in a bar.
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Yazata Wrote:As everyone knows, girls can be exceedingly mean, often to each other (and to men that they don't find sexually attractive). Women in politics can be exceedingly mean to anyone that they perceive is thwarting them. I don't think that it's correct to imagine that females are the more moral sex.
Can females inherit aggressive traits?
Of course (to whatever extent that aggression is inherited). I think that I said that in what you quoted. I think that females can violate ethical norms just as easily as males. It's as easy for females to be bitches and it is for males to be assholes. But I don't think that what's in play in the topic of this thread is so much a matter of inheriting or not inheriting aggressive traits so much as it's a matter of sex-linked differences in how aggressive traits are displayed in different sorts of situations.
SyneNov 14, 2017 09:20 PM (This post was last modified: Nov 14, 2017 09:23 PM by Syne.)
(Nov 14, 2017 06:14 AM)C C Wrote: Instead she argues that matriarchies are societies that honor mothers and consider care and generosity–values they associate with motherhood–to be the highest values. In affirming values associated with motherhood, matriarchal societies are not essentialist. They do not affirm that only women can be nurturers of life. Quite the opposite, they assert that the highest role for anyone–male or female or other–is to nurture life.
...
Instead, matriarchies are mother-centered societies, and they build on maternal values: nurturing, nurturing, caring, peacekeeping; i.e., motherhood in the broadest sense. These values apply to all, for mothers and non-mothers, for women and men alike. In matriarchal societies, "equality" does not mean equalizing differences. Natural differences that exist between the sexes and generations are respected and honored, but they are not used to create hierarchies (egalitarian society).
Gender-centric values are never egalitarian. Gynocentrism is no better than androcentrism. The former devalues the contributions of natural masculinity, as provider and protector. The government has already devalued these traits, with welfare, to such an extent that there is little incentive for fatherhood.
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Are you saying that environmental factors don’t play a role in aggressive behavior, and that it’s purely genetic, or hormonal?
There's ample evidence that things like fatherlessness do contribute to criminality, violence, and a host of other bad behavior. That's actually a lack of nature masculine influence.
(Nov 14, 2017 05:22 AM)Syne Wrote: Yeah, exactly the type of miserable misandrists who get off on trying to emasculate men. Keep trying though. It only demonstrates why more women aren't in power. Thinking you have to use ad hominems in lieu of competency is a problem.
Emasculating? Sheer numbers are related to masculine traits, eh? Maybe that’s why males are falling behind in higher education…peer pressure.
(Nov 14, 2017 08:29 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Do you think it qualifies as pseudoscience?
Depends on how you define 'pseudoscience'. But in general, yes. That doesn't mean that it's totally without value. I just see it as more akin to politics than to physics. To the extent that it purports to be 'science' and to have the same kind of epistemological authority as physics or molecular biology, I'd call sociology 'pseudoscience'. It's hugely value-laden and in my opinion more productive of rhetoric than of truth. Obviously, that doesn't mean that it is always wrong. But it does suggest that it lacks the kind of reliable methods that make so much of science more probably right than wrong.
Hmm...Lang referred to it as pseudoscience once, but I don’t know if it would be fair to call it that.
(Nov 14, 2017 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: I think that males are more prone to physical confrontations. They are more apt to fight hand-to-hand and to engage in crimes of violence. And yes, I think that there are probably evolutionary reasons for that, since males tended to be the hunters and fighters in paleolithic bands when hominins were still evolving. Their strength and ability to fight was a survival characteristic not only for them personally, but for the females in their group as well.
There's a reason (as every high-school boy knows) why even today's females favor the good-looking hunky guys who can take care of themselves (and the girl too) rather than the timid, studious, skinny geeks (unless the latter are tech billionaires). Sexual selection is very real and in a way, females have bred males to be what they are. (And now they are shrieking about it.)
Well, I’m sure that everyone would agree that behavior is a complex process. Both nature and nurture, brain structure and function, multiple genes, chemical signaling, both neurotransmitters and hormones, right?
And everyone seems to agree that men are more vulnerable to aggressive behavior, and that men have lower fear aversion, and greater risk taking behavior.
Yazata Wrote:I think that 'aggressive behavior' (that needs defining) often manifests itself differently in males and females. That's probably more true in face-to-face confrontations than in more impersonal decisions made from behind a desk. In other words, male and female government and business leaders are more likely to behave similarly than male and female drunks in a bar.
As everyone knows, girls can be exceedingly mean, often to each other (and to men that they don't find sexually attractive). Women in politics can be exceedingly mean to anyone that they perceive is thwarting them. I don't think that it's correct to imagine that females are the more moral sex.
Hmm...the author of C C's article seems to have taken the quote from Helena Swanwick out of context. She’s not saying that we’re just as mean and physically aggressive as men. She seems to be saying something very similar to what Emma Goldman said. Not that we’ve bred violence into men like Yazata implied, but that we’ve loved them for it. We, too, have glorified it.
I don’t know how or if that will ever change. Violence is still heavily romanticized, but not only with face-to-face confrontations. War, too, is heavily romanticized.
The future of the women's movement
by Swanwick, Helena M.
Let us contemplate the ideal world of the anti-suffragist, where man goes out daily to his toil in the cruel world—while woman lies warm at home, secure and safe. He if fighting is to be done, fights for home and country; she has no more arduous part than to weep, while he is away, and welcome home the victor. But stay! This version of affairs always assumes that the man is the victor. Have not the vanquished wives, too? Study the picture of any war, even the most modern and the most civilized. Are the women of the vanquished, the invaded country, secure and safe? From the tale of the Trojan War to the latest reports of Bulgarian or Servian atrocities, we find all truthful records give the lie to this rosy picture. Men who go to war have the honor and the glory, the bands and the banners, the stars and medals and monuments and maybe the glorious death. Women die, and see the babies die, but theirs is no glory; nothing but horror and shame unspeakable, the slaying of those for whom they willingly risked their lives, when they brought them into the world, the destruction of all that is most precious to them. When men are killed, are their responsibilities killed with them? When the flower of manhood is destroyed, who are worthy to be the mates of the women an begat the men of the future?
These are only some of the questions that surge up in a woman’s mind when men talk as if war concerned men only. But after all, in a modern civilized state, is war the only thing that counts.
…Suffering and sacrifice are immeasurable things, and it would be a bold man who would assert that the sufferings and sacrifices of men in warfare were, in modern states, equal to those of women in the giving and nurture of life.
In conclusion, I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption that one frequently finds implicit in much of the feminist talk of the present day—the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history. If men have enjoyed fighting, and gloried in bloodshed, as many still do, that is because their blood was hot within them, and the women of their age and race loved them for it. The experience men of women have each made for civilization, and women have not the man’s obvious temptation with fists to try conclusions. If motherhood has been for much in the education of the race, so have science and the love of the arts and beauty. Agriculture, manufacture, commerce, even finance have engaged men’s hearts, and more often than not turned them from war. War is a waste and the women’s movement may be taken as the type of all the great conflicts there may have been between coercion and development, bullying and understanding, love and hate. What has been good in war has been the life-force, the energy, the joy that men have put into it. They are finding other conflicts than those with their fellow-men, into which they can put these forces, and the women’s movement, in part the cause, is also in great measure the effect of the disappearance of barbarism.
Emma Goldman
"Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from women. The most ardent church workers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.
The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and precious to her. It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return gives her a life of loneliness and despair. Yet the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman. She is who instills the love of conquest and power into her children; she is who whispers the glories of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to sleep with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman, too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield. Yes, it is woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.” ~Emma Goldman
IMHO, the world would be more peaceful if there were more women leaders.
(Nov 14, 2017 05:22 AM)Syne Wrote: Yeah, exactly the type of miserable misandrists who get off on trying to emasculate men. Keep trying though. It only demonstrates why more women aren't in power. Thinking you have to use ad hominems in lieu of competency is a problem.
Emasculating? Sheer numbers are related to masculine traits, eh? Maybe that’s why males are falling behind in higher education…peer pressure.
(Nov 14, 2017 08:29 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 14, 2017 07:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Do you think it qualifies as pseudoscience?
Depends on how you define 'pseudoscience'. But in general, yes. That doesn't mean that it's totally without value. I just see it as more akin to politics than to physics. To the extent that it purports to be 'science' and to have the same kind of epistemological authority as physics or molecular biology, I'd call sociology 'pseudoscience'. It's hugely value-laden and in my opinion more productive of rhetoric than of truth. Obviously, that doesn't mean that it is always wrong. But it does suggest that it lacks the kind of reliable methods that make so much of science more probably right than wrong.
Hmm...Lang referred to it as pseudoscience once, but I don’t know if it would be fair to call it that.
(Nov 14, 2017 05:24 PM)Yazata Wrote: I think that males are more prone to physical confrontations. They are more apt to fight hand-to-hand and to engage in crimes of violence. And yes, I think that there are probably evolutionary reasons for that, since males tended to be the hunters and fighters in paleolithic bands when hominins were still evolving. Their strength and ability to fight was a survival characteristic not only for them personally, but for the females in their group as well.
There's a reason (as every high-school boy knows) why even today's females favor the good-looking hunky guys who can take care of themselves (and the girl too) rather than the timid, studious, skinny geeks (unless the latter are tech billionaires). Sexual selection is very real and in a way, females have bred males to be what they are. (And now they are shrieking about it.)
Well, I’m sure that everyone would agree that behavior is a complex process. Both nature and nurture, brain structure and function, multiple genes, chemical signaling, both neurotransmitters and hormones, right?
And everyone seems to agree that men are more vulnerable to aggressive behavior, and that men have lower fear aversion, and greater risk taking behavior.
Yazata Wrote:I think that 'aggressive behavior' (that needs defining) often manifests itself differently in males and females. That's probably more true in face-to-face confrontations than in more impersonal decisions made from behind a desk. In other words, male and female government and business leaders are more likely to behave similarly than male and female drunks in a bar.
As everyone knows, girls can be exceedingly mean, often to each other (and to men that they don't find sexually attractive). Women in politics can be exceedingly mean to anyone that they perceive is thwarting them. I don't think that it's correct to imagine that females are the more moral sex.
Hmm...the author of C C's article seems to have taken the quote from Helena Swanwick out of context. She’s not saying that we’re just as mean and physically aggressive as men. She seems to be saying something very similar to what Emma Goldman said. Not that we’ve bred violence into men like Yazata implied, but that we’ve loved them for it. We, too, have glorified it.
I don’t know how or if that will ever change. Violence is still heavily romanticized, but not only with face-to-face confrontations. War, too, is heavily romanticized.
The future of the women's movement
by Swanwick, Helena M.
Let us contemplate the ideal world of the anti-suffragist, where man goes out daily to his toil in the cruel world—while woman lies warm at home, secure and safe. He if fighting is to be done, fights for home and country; she has no more arduous part than to weep, while he is away, and welcome home the victor. But stay! This version of affairs always assumes that the man is the victor. Have not the vanquished wives, too? Study the picture of any war, even the most modern and the most civilized. Are the women of the vanquished, the invaded country, secure and safe? From the tale of the Trojan War to the latest reports of Bulgarian or Servian atrocities, we find all truthful records give the lie to this rosy picture. Men who go to war have the honor and the glory, the bands and the banners, the stars and medals and monuments and maybe the glorious death. Women die, and see the babies die, but theirs is no glory; nothing but horror and shame unspeakable, the slaying of those for whom they willingly risked their lives, when they brought them into the world, the destruction of all that is most precious to them. When men are killed, are their responsibilities killed with them? When the flower of manhood is destroyed, who are worthy to be the mates of the women an begat the men of the future?
These are only some of the questions that surge up in a woman’s mind when men talk as if war concerned men only. But after all, in a modern civilized state, is war the only thing that counts.
…Suffering and sacrifice are immeasurable things, and it would be a bold man who would assert that the sufferings and sacrifices of men in warfare were, in modern states, equal to those of women in the giving and nurture of life.
In conclusion, I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption that one frequently finds implicit in much of the feminist talk of the present day—the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history. If men have enjoyed fighting, and gloried in bloodshed, as many still do, that is because their blood was hot within them, and the women of their age and race loved them for it. The experience men of women have each made for civilization, and women have not the man’s obvious temptation with fists to try conclusions. If motherhood has been for much in the education of the race, so have science and the love of the arts and beauty. Agriculture, manufacture, commerce, even finance have engaged men’s hearts, and more often than not turned them from war. War is a waste and the women’s movement may be taken as the type of all the great conflicts there may have been between coercion and development, bullying and understanding, love and hate. What has been good in war has been the life-force, the energy, the joy that men have put into it. They are finding other conflicts than those with their fellow-men, into which they can put these forces, and the women’s movement, in part the cause, is also in great measure the effect of the disappearance of barbarism.
Emma Goldman
"Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from women. The most ardent church workers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.
The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and precious to her. It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return gives her a life of loneliness and despair. Yet the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman. She is who instills the love of conquest and power into her children; she is who whispers the glories of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to sleep with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman, too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield. Yes, it is woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.” ~Emma Goldman
IMHO, the world would be more peaceful if there were more women leaders.
Nov 14, 2017 04:40 AM
