In response to where this thread has now gone to, that is into denigrating stereotypes as unfair or wrong.
Have a read of this-
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201210/stereotype-inaccuracy
''how well do my beliefs correspond to the actual probabilities? One can do this sort of thing for many different types of groups.
And lots of scientists have. And you know what they found?
That stereotype accuracy -- the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria -- is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology. The correlations of stereotypes with criteria range from .4 to over .9, and average almost .8 for cultural stereotypes (the correlation of beliefs that are widely shared with criteria) and .5 for personal stereotypes (the correlation of one individual's stereotypes with criteria, averaged over lots of individuals). The average effect in social psychology is about .20.
Stereotypes are more valid than most social psychological hypotheses.''
''
Why do so many psychologists emphasize stereotype inaccuracy when the evidence so clearly provides evidence of such high accuracy? Why is there this Extraordinary Scientific Delusion?
''Which raises a question: There may be many explanations, but one that fits well is the leftward lean of most psychologists.
If we can self-righteously rail against other people's inaccurate stereotypes, we cast ourselves as good, decent egalitarians fighting the good fight, siding with the oppressed against their oppressors. Furthermore, as Jon Haidt has repeatedly shown, ideology blinds people to facts that are right under their noses.
Liberal social scientists often have assumed stereotypes were inaccurate without bothering to test for inaccuracy, and, when the evidence has been right under their noses, they have avoided looking at it. And when something happens where they can't avoid looking at it, they have denigrated its importance. Which is, in some ways, very amusing -- if, after 100 years of proclaiming the inaccuracy of stereotypes to the world, can we really just say "Never mind, it's not that important" after the evidence comes in showing that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology?''
The author of the above appears to make some good points, however I thought they might bring up what I see as a bit of a 'chicken or egg' counter argument. That is, men may not like sports all that much if society didn't assume(have the stereotype) that all men automatically do like sports. This may reduce the accuracy of this stereotype a little bit, but over all, the biological aspect of why men like sports more than women would still remain, with an accuracy still above 0.5 etc.
Many women studies/social scientists believe that the ''patriarchy'' conspiracy explains all the differences between the sexes, this is absolute psuedoscience, where is the scientific evidence to back this up?
---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------
I'm pretty bored with this thread, so to sum up the differences in the sexes.
The facts state that -
Women's brains are biologically wired so that they enjoy chocolate more than men.(you lucky devils you!
😛)
Women are increasingly becoming dominant in the Veterinary and medical field.
Women read more fiction than men do.
Women are generally seen as more capricious than men.
Women live longer than men.
Women generally do not have to meet the rigorous physical requirements men have to when entering the Law enforcement or military field. Not to mention society generally acknowledges women as intrinsicly more valuable than men- the call for ''Women and children only'' on the titanic and other disasters are examples of this.
etc.
----
Men-
Men dominate politics, they also read more non-fiction than women.
Men take more risks than Women, this sometimes leads to death( which partly explains why Men don't live as long as Women) but this risky behaviour sometimes(with luck) leads to big payoffs both scientifically and financially.
Men dominate the field of Maths, Physics, rocket science, computer science etc.
Men are physically stronger.
etc.
----
''Which gender is better'' is a broken question as both genders are equally inferior and superior in different fields of activities.
Should both genders be treated as equals even when they're clearly not equal in many respects?
Yes they should be treated as equals, and I think this should be extended into removing positive discrimination practices like the physical exercise entrance exams in law enforcement, for example, being easier on women than on men. This is special treatment and pretty condescending towards women in my opinion.
Equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal work is a fair system.
However, as we experienced here in this very thread, many modern feminists don't wish to acknowledge that men are intrinsically better at some things than women are. As they see acknowledging this as accepting defeat or something, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure why they freak out so much over this fact.
Many modern feminists take great strides to attack, debase and devalue both men and the very society that gives them equal rights(and special treatment) as the evil ''patriarchy''.
To me Modern Feminists in the western world are as irrational as those that believe in creationism.
Case in point-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Chauvinist_Pigs
''Levy theorizes that many women internalize the objectifying male gaze that permeates a raunch culture(wearing revealing clothes pornography etc), leading them to participate in self-objectification quite willingly, falsely believing that it is a form of female empowerment and sexual liberation''
Others, such as Susan Brownmiller, a well-known American feminist, journalist, author, and activist, share this opinion.''
So to get this straight, when women weren't treated as equals, they wore binding victorian style clothing. But now that women don't have to comform to this anymore they have, according to these feminists, fallen into ''the false belief'' that wearing anything but fully clad victorian clothing ''is a false sense of female empowerment''.
It doesn't just stop there with these crazies - ''
Levy's argument that numerous women falsely believe that they are empowered by raunch culture because they internalize patriarchal thought is based in the Marxist concept of false consciousness''
😕 Correct me if I'm wrong, but going by that logic, wouldn't patriarchal thought(if it existed) be forcing women back into wearing victorian style clothing and not towards wearing revealing 'raunch' clothing?
Furthermore, does this not mean, according to these modern feminists, that Buffy in BtVS who as we know routinely wears ''raunchy'' clothing as part of this female chauvinist pig conspiracy as it prevades ''patriarchal thought'' and therefore it isn't a feminist(female empowering) TV show?
😕
LOl what a load of bull! and more importantly, How in the hell does this have anything got to do with equal rights?
For example, I contribute to the funding of a equal rights promoting organization.
http://www.youngwomenforchange.org/
''Combating discrimination and promoting equality as a fundamental human right and a basic principle of social justice''
This is to me where the struggle for equal rights(call it feminism if you want) should be focussed and not towards fighting shadows as modern feminists like Levy, Andrea Dworkin and so on, are.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...afghan-activist-continues-malala-s-fight.html
Afghan activist Noorjahan Akbar is a true Heroine! and will do more for equal rights for millions of women than all of these self proclaimed ''modern feminists'' (who let us not forget live in the western world and concern themselves with making up enemies - ''female chauvinist pigs'' to give their lives meaning) combined!
Modern Feminism in the western world is down right increasingly backwards, and not in any way shape or form helping the promotion of equal rights in countries where actual real crimes against humanity and discrimination are taking place, for example Afghanistan.
