Criticisms of Feminism

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

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.

Or, maybe, we should start thinking about how better workers get paid more, regardless of their sex.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

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

No, they don't necessarily exist together. We can get rid of gender roles.

[Tubbsalot]

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

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

sauce on that.

http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2013/10/UNO ... -Roles.php
http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/course ... n_2000.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~ser6f/udry.pdf

and some purely physical stuff:
http://www.intercult.su.se/publications ... _2007c.pdf

EDIT: forgot this bit too, might want to take a read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10975/

Obviously, the evidence suggest that gender roles are not always the same when comparing different species, but they undoubtedly exist.

basically just look up sexual dimorphism and behavioral dimorphism between sexes.

Corporeality is not gender, and human behavior isn't primarily fueled by instinct, in distinction from most other species of animals. How is that difficult to understand?

If you pumped testosterone in a specimen of ovarian corporeality, or if you pumped androgen blockers, progesteron and estrogen in a specimen of testicular corporeality, you'd likely see a change.

This change triggered by a mere difference in endocrine function would be less likely to observed in individuals that have a neurological structure influenced in a greater depth by intra-uterine hormone bath, also causing them to also have more in-group differences and out-group similarities than other species.

Nothing of this has to do with the human concept of gender that is UNIQUE, because as I said, it depends on CULTURE and SELF-AWARENESS. We behave through learning and social immersion. Do you even fucking understand how we function as a species?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

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.

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.

It's not entirely social and it's not entirely biological, but to claim you can get rid of the biological portion it is foolish.

[Tubbsalot]

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.

It's not entirely social and it's not entirely biological, but to claim you can get rid of the biological portion it is foolish.

Nobody was claiming we can eliminate biological differences. They were claiming we can get rid of gender roles, which we can, because gender roles are not dictated by our biology. All you need to do is view gender as irrelevant when it comes to how people should act, and you no longer adhere to gender roles.

[Shevardino]

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

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

Learn something about these issues before I embarrass myself? How have I embarrassed myself? All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

A man keeps his penis and a woman keeps his vagina.

A "feminine" man would have no impact on the reproductive processes of a "masculine" woman.

Not to mention intersex and trans people already exist.

In fact there are non-het couples that can reproduce.

[Geanna]

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.

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.

We're, or more so, a certain individual - is formulating excuses because Point A skips B and decides Y is the next point. In all, I have a hard time trying to understand the correlation or otherwise connection thereof, in regards to what Nationalism is stating. Gender is indeed a societal construct, specifically applied to the idea of gender roles. Basing that there is some form of connection or correlation of gender roles and sexual reproduction just seems to be sophistry - or ignorance.

In which case, upon more analytical review over the majority of statements Nat has used - either A) Ignorance is to play here, B) There is legitimately a lack of understanding pertaining to the discussion, C) All of the above.

I can't help but sense a rather strong vibe or otherwise manipulative misdirect from the root of the discussion, to trying to imply that women are set into their perceived gender role biologically, going off by Nat's logic it seems. Ill logic as that may be.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

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

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

Female physics and math double major here to remind Shevardino that women throughout the course of their lives are discouraged from participating in hard sciences and excused from being held to high science-related knowledge levels because "aw it's okay, girls don't need to learn math and science."
Societal pressures are what keep women from doing well in science and math and from being interested in them. Men aren't fucking special or more intelligent.

[Shevardino]

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

Learn something about these issues before I embarrass myself? How have I embarrassed myself? All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

Here, have some sauce to go with it. Women only make up 26% of STEM workers.
https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/understand ... reneurship

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2013/10/UNO ... -Roles.php
http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/course ... n_2000.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~ser6f/udry.pdf

and some purely physical stuff:
http://www.intercult.su.se/publications ... _2007c.pdf

EDIT: forgot this bit too, might want to take a read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10975/

Obviously, the evidence suggest that gender roles are not always the same when comparing different species, but they undoubtedly exist.

basically just look up sexual dimorphism and behavioral dimorphism between sexes.

Corporeality is not gender, and human behavior isn't primarily fueled by instinct, in distinction from most other species of animals. How is that difficult to understand?

If you pumped testosterone in a specimen of ovarian corporeality, or if you pumped androgen blockers, progesteron and estrogen in a specimen of testicular corporeality, you'd likely see a change.

This change triggered by a mere difference in endocrine function would be less likely to observed in individuals that have a neurological structure influenced in a greater depth by intra-uterine hormone bath, also causing them to also have more in-group differences and out-group similarities than other species.

Nothing of this has to do with the human concept of gender that is UNIQUE, because as I said, it depends on CULTURE and SELF-AWARENESS. We behave through learning and social immersion. Do you even fucking understand how we function as a species?

human-exceptionalism isn't going to help you here. Mammals have gender roles, birds do too. They're more pronounced and necessary for survival, just as ours once were. Yes, there are socially constructed gender roles, but the desire to form such roles in the first place is a biological holdover from when we needed them. In any case, I've got to get some sleep, so, night mate.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

Learn something about these issues before I embarrass myself? How have I embarrassed myself? All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

Majority of STEM majors are men because of sexism. Not because men are better than women.

[Shevardino]

Please learn something about these issues before embarrassing yourself. And your anecdotes don't qualify as data, as my cohort in chemistry - primarily women - would be glad to remind you.

Female physics and math double major here to remind Shevardino that women throughout the course of their lives are discouraged from participating in hard sciences and excused from being held to high science-related knowledge levels because "aw it's okay, girls don't need to learn math and science."
Societal pressures are what keep women from doing well in science and math and from being interested in them. Men aren't fucking special or more intelligent.

If you read the end of my original post, you'll clearly see that I addressed the issues of societal pressure, and said it needs to change such that women are encouraged to be successful and independent.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Now, in what world does aggression play into sexual reproduction, rather than sexual selection?

In the same world where non-self-aware animals have gender.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Learn something about these issues before I embarrass myself? How have I embarrassed myself? All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

Here, have some sauce to go with it. Women only make up 26% of STEM workers.
https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/understand ... reneurship

*sauce dropping intensifies more*

[Shevardino]

Learn something about these issues before I embarrass myself? How have I embarrassed myself? All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

Majority of STEM majors are men because of sexism. Not because men are better than women.

Please show me where I said men are better than women. IF I recall, in my original post, I said there is more societal pressure on men to go into these fields than on women, and said it needed to be changed.

[MERIZoC]

So, in conclusion, OP doesn't know what feminism is?

[Geanna]

So, in conclusion, OP doesn't know what feminism is?

Pretty much.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So, in conclusion, OP doesn't know what feminism is?

Yep.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

human-exceptionalism isn't going to help you here. Mammals have gender roles, birds do too. They're more pronounced and necessary for survival, just as ours once were. Yes, there are socially constructed gender roles, but the desire to form such roles in the first place is a biological holdover from when we needed them. In any case, I've got to get some sleep, so, night mate.

Which part of animals don't have genders and humans don't act anywhere near purely based on instinct, or in degrees where it is socially significant, because evolution has done away with it, you didn't conveniently ignore?

Every human has a unique psyche and neurological wiring. You aren't helping your case.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Female physics and math double major here to remind Shevardino that women throughout the course of their lives are discouraged from participating in hard sciences and excused from being held to high science-related knowledge levels because "aw it's okay, girls don't need to learn math and science."
Societal pressures are what keep women from doing well in science and math and from being interested in them. Men aren't fucking special or more intelligent.

If you read the end of my original post, you'll clearly see that I addressed the issues of societal pressure, and said it needs to change such that women are encouraged to be successful and independent.

"Most women can't make the cut"
Huh.
Wow.

[Tubbsalot]

How have I embarrassed myself?

You informed us that women are, essentially, intellectually inferior because some of them drop out of STEM fields.

If you can't tell why you should be embarrassed, there's nothing I can do for you.

All you did was provide an anecdote to say I'm wrong. Majority of people in STEM fields are men. It's true, and it's what I said. Sure I provided an anecdote, but it DOES correspond to the average trend across the nation.

There are many STEM fields in which men are outnumbered by women - sometimes overwhelmingly. And you have yet to prove that this is a "trend," since the only evidence you've presented is your anecdote, which is absolutely worthless as evidence. A fact I would have hoped you'd pick up on, when you figured out why you didn't accept my own anecdote as evidence.

Additionally, if you care about money, STEM fields should be the last place you look at. If you want women to be breadwinners, leaving STEM is the best choice they could make, particularly in America. (Or leaving SM, at any rate; god knows why the T is in there.)

[Shevardino]

If you read the end of my original post, you'll clearly see that I addressed the issues of societal pressure, and said it needs to change such that women are encouraged to be successful and independent.

"Most women can't make the cut"
Huh.
Wow.

Yes, most women can't make the cut. Societal pressure pushes them into backing out, and tells them they should work with people rather than numbers. Expectations for them to make it in STEM fields are low, and they are encouraged to the classic "women should be secretaries, teachers and waitresses." No where did I claim that inability stemmed from biology, it stems from current norms in society. Which again, I have said multiple times, need to be changed.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

human-exceptionalism isn't going to help you here. Mammals have gender roles, birds do too. They're more pronounced and necessary for survival, just as ours once were. Yes, there are socially constructed gender roles, but the desire to form such roles in the first place is a biological holdover from when we needed them. In any case, I've got to get some sleep, so, night mate.

Which part of animals don't have genders and humans don't act anywhere near purely based on instinct, or in degrees where it is socially significant, because evolution has done away with it, you didn't conveniently ignore?

Every human has a unique psyche and neurological wiring. You aren't helping your case.

I know every individual is unique, but as I have said before, generalizations work on the scale of billions. Also yes, people do have socially significant instincts, our instinctual desire to be social is an instinct itself, who'd have thought. Alright, now I'm off to sleep.