Page 7 of 95

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:46 pm
by Albul
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Albul wrote:Again...

Eunuchs can still get horny after being castrated...

Also, you may want to watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI

This has nothing to do with sex drive, this has to do with aggression.

You could have specified that from the start...

So, you're saying that we can't get rid of aggression without removing sexual reproduction? What kind of kinky stuff are you into?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:46 pm
by Stagnant Axon Terminal
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Are u suggesting that men are incapable of rising above base hormones and are equivalent to dogs

No, I'm saying that if you cut off a man's balls, obviously the lack of testosterone is going to affect behavior. That's a bit different from equating men from dogs, isn't it? Sure, reason is more powerful than hormones for (most) people, but hormones undoubtedly play a role.

And this has
nothing
at
all
to
do
with
eliminating
gender
roles.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:47 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:
Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.

They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:47 pm
by Carpathia and Moldova
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:
Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.


Aye, but that still doesn't mean the women were unable to pick up a spear and go hunting, if necessary, as having too few hunters in a tribe would have led to starvation.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:47 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:
Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.


^ This.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:48 pm
by Norstal
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.

They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

If evolution taught you anything, is that vestigial structure generally turns into uselessness and eventually it's gone. So I don't see why you'd claim gender roles would always exist if they are unnecessary.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:49 pm
by Stagnant Axon Terminal
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.

They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

So why are you arguing that they are necessary for sexual reproduction

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:49 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini
Carpathia and Moldova wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.


Aye, but that still doesn't mean the women were unable to pick up a spear and go hunting, if necessary, as having too few hunters in a tribe would have led to starvation.


Yes, but at the same time that's why you also got men who didn't have sex at all and even "slavery" going on back in the day a bit different than today.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:50 pm
by Norstal
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

So why are you arguing that they are necessary for sexual reproduction

No, he's arguing that it will always exist as long as sexual reproduction exists.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:50 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini
Norstal wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

If evolution taught you anything, is that vestigial structure generally turns into uselessness and eventually it's gone. So I don't see why you'd claim gender roles would always exist if they are unnecessary.


Well fucking wisdom teeth are (arguably) vestigial structures and they're not going anytime soon.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:51 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

So why are you arguing that they are necessary for sexual reproduction

I'm not, I'm arguing that as long as sexual reproduction exists, gender roles will too. Sexual reproduction isn't dependent on gender roles, but the two follow hand-in-hand.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:52 pm
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Katganistan wrote:What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

Pretty sure I can fuck a dude with a womb while wearing make up and sexual reproduction would still take place.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:53 pm
by Albul
Now, in what world does aggression play into sexual reproduction, rather than sexual selection?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:54 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Norstal wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:They aren't necessary, but they still exist, even if it is just a biological holdover from the age of tribal humans.

If evolution taught you anything, is that vestigial structure generally turns into uselessness and eventually it's gone. So I don't see why you'd claim gender roles would always exist if they are unnecessary.

I still have an appendix, I grew wisdom teeth, and I have damn backhair, those don't show any signs of going away soon. Most likely they will eventually, over the course of millennia, but no time soon for sure.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:54 pm
by Albul
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:So why are you arguing that they are necessary for sexual reproduction

I'm not, I'm arguing that as long as sexual reproduction exists, gender roles will too. Sexual reproduction isn't dependent on gender roles, but the two follow hand-in-hand.

Isn't this what we've been saying the entire time?

Now you're just posting for the hell of it. >:(

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:54 pm
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological :roll:

Animals don't have genders [at least not in the same identity depth we have because of our superior cognition, self-awareness and capacity to absorb information and culture], and gender roles vary across human societies.

Dude wow

Bicha melhore

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:54 pm
by Norstal
Soldati senza confini wrote:
Norstal wrote:If evolution taught you anything, is that vestigial structure generally turns into uselessness and eventually it's gone. So I don't see why you'd claim gender roles would always exist if they are unnecessary.


Well fucking wisdom teeth are (arguably) vestigial structures and they're not going anytime soon.

You used to have eye-shields, but they're gone. Obviously some vestigial structures remains, but no one ever recognizes them anyways. Besides, wisdom teeth is relatively recent as it replaces teeth that you'd lose and people used to lose a lot of teeth cause, you know.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Albul wrote:Now, in what world does aggression play into sexual reproduction, rather than sexual selection?

Neither, aggression is influenced by testosterone levels.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:56 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological :roll:

Animals don't have genders [at least not in the same identity depth we have because of our superior cognition, self-awareness and capacity to absorb information and culture], and gender roles vary across human societies.

Dude wow

Bicha melhore

read the sauces

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:56 pm
by Norstal
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Norstal wrote:If evolution taught you anything, is that vestigial structure generally turns into uselessness and eventually it's gone. So I don't see why you'd claim gender roles would always exist if they are unnecessary.

I still have an appendix, I grew wisdom teeth, and I have damn backhair, those don't show any signs of going away soon. Most likely they will eventually, over the course of millennia, but no time soon for sure.

I never said it'll happen soon. I'm just saying it's not impossible.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:56 pm
by The Confederacy of Nationalism
Albul wrote:
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:I'm not, I'm arguing that as long as sexual reproduction exists, gender roles will too. Sexual reproduction isn't dependent on gender roles, but the two follow hand-in-hand.

Isn't this what we've been saying the entire time?

Now you're just posting for the hell of it. >:(

nope, I'm saying they necessarily exist together, dependence is different

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:57 pm
by Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Shaggtopia wrote:Why is it that we blame women for the problems women face? Why is it that we blame women for the gender-roles imposed by society? If these problems are symptomatic then what is the cancer?
I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe I should ask the bullies that called me a 'pussy' for studying during lunch and playing nerdy card games, yelled 'faggot' at me while I was walking down the hall despite or maybe because of the fact that I wasn't interested in the same macho bull**** that they where, OH OH or that one time that I got beat to a mangled bloody pulp because I threw the learning curve and had a hand in flunking them so hard they couldn't play sports because of school policy, come to think of it how did they find out I passed? I guess the teacher was upset their star athletes couldn't play in the big game...
Do you feel the sarcasm here? and now before anybody says anything about what I've said here today, I'd like to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that I don't blame sports because no, it's not their fault, I don't even really blame the people that personally harmed me. I BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO STOOD BY AND MADE EXCUSES FOR THOSE PEOPLE, Because they knew it was wrong and did nothing to stop it let alone remedy the behavior.

THIS SO MUCH
Awesome newcomer post is awesome

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:57 pm
by Albul
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Albul wrote:Isn't this what we've been saying the entire time?

Now you're just posting for the hell of it. >:(

nope, I'm saying they necessarily exist together, dependence is different
The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Albul wrote:Now, in what world does aggression play into sexual reproduction, rather than sexual selection?

Neither, aggression is influenced by testosterone levels.

Go home. You're drunk.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:58 pm
by Tubbsalot
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

[Long story short, women had to be preserved for baby-making, men didn't, so women were prioritised. - Ed.]

Well, no. The human population for most of history wasn't limited by our rate of reproduction, it was limited by the availability of food and water. Women generally had several years in between pregnancies. This isn't something that I've read up on, but I suspect the male physique was preserved into late human development mainly by competition for mates.

In any case, gender roles weren't necessary even back in ye olde caveman times. The only area where men were essentially required was in the hunting of large, powerful prey - societies could be (and were) sustained mainly on the back of foraging, trapping and fishing. Hunting was a luxury more than a necessity.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:
Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:So why are you arguing that they are necessary for sexual reproduction

I'm not, I'm arguing that as long as sexual reproduction exists, gender roles will too. Sexual reproduction isn't dependent on gender roles, but the two follow hand-in-hand.

Again, you haven't grasped that gender roles are a SOCIAL phenomenon regarding the appropriate behaviour of men and women. There are societies where the gender roles have dictated that women be aggressive and physical, and the men passive and gentle. They are correlated with, spring in part from, but are not dictated by biology - and as we've established, they're crap, so I don't see why we're making excuses for them.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:58 pm
by Shevardino
Has any poster here remarked that the pay gap is a lie yet? Same work is same pay. The "at the same job" part tacked onto the gender pay gap is a very common misquote (something you can literally say "Thanks Obama," too, since he also has said it). The average woman makes less than the average man. Not "a woman gets payed about 77% what a man gets payed at the same job." Woman on average work lower paying jobs (there are many other issues with the robustness of the statistic, for instance, it doesn't include hours worked, meaning even at the same job, a man can work overtime consistently and of course get payed more than a woman coworker, and men do work significantly more overtime on average than women). Ever single female STEM major I knew changed to humanities majors before the end of freshman year, and it's an extremely common trend across the entire nation. Most women can't make the cut, or don't utilize the massive amounts of woman-only resources and opportunities that fill my university mailbox to the brim every week. The only women I see around the lab I work at are all Asian immigrants except for one. ONE. Something needs to be done to encourage women to use the resources available to them without lowering standards of high education/skill fields to meet arbitrary employment quotas. Maybe a shift in cultural expectations. Men are expected to be the independent bread-winners of every family, and this could be the pressure that pushes many men through long arduous hours of hard studying to do things they hate for money they are expected to earn. Surely there must be some way to redistribute this such that both genders are expected to be successful, hardworking, and independent.