undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
Which is why I said a cerebral process may arrive upon a hypothesis based upon those statistics.
What is your point? It seems you are using statistics for cerebral conclusions. Are you using them or is it that you may be using them? If you are using them, what is your hypothesis? Does it logically follow from the statistics, and have you given critical thought to what variables are uncontrolled as you examine these statistics?
quote:
It's clear to me that Females are not fulfilling all male jobs with equal number and aplomb. In fact, statistically, Females avoid many of what Warren Farrell calls "glass cellar" jobs. These are the low paying, low status and high risk jobs of society that are labor intense and usually hazardous. And almost entirely male populated.
In that list of occupations is law enforcement, firefighters, military, more. Sure, these professions are not filled in equal numbers. However, that lack of parity is irrelevant with respect to the claim that men are put in harms way because women are deemed the superior sex. I see flawed reasoning in the source you cite, which brings me back to the question of whether you are simply picking data that supports what you believe without critically examining it.
quote:
Perhaps it's not too hard to conclude that rare Female leaders throughout history have had to deal with foreign monarchies and political powers that have always been male-led,
The dispute between Mary Queen of Scots and her cousin Elizabeth I was between two women who sought each other's death for sake of the throne and power.
quote:
Some business studies have concluded that Female leadership holds advantages over male leadership here, as discussed here.
That particular study does not specifically praise female leadership but praises a progressive leadership style and cites some cultural reasons about why this style is more likely to be adopted by women.
quote:
I think this is a stretch that flies in the face of what most of us have experienced empirically regarding male aggression.
I explained my comments and reasoning and my comments do not contradict empirical data. Which idea specifically do you consider a stretch?
quote:
It is my belief that male intellect and energy works better for society when under the guidance of Female leadership or influence, or in the very least, for the greater good of some societal benefit.
It is my belief that male and female intellect and energy work better for society when under the guidance of effective leadership or influence, whether that leadership comes from a man or a woman. It seems that in a group you would want the leadership to be had by a woman, whereas I would want it to be had by the individual who is best suited for that role.
quote:
You do realize you are among those who want an imbalance of authority in their lives, however—right?
So what? What imbalance I desire, I do so because of how I feel about it. I am not trying to impress upon others that my preference is based on a natural course of things. Also, however much I defer to the judgment of my partner will be a function of her individual traits and not for sake of a belief in female superiority.
quote:
It's apparent by now that you don't believe in a cerebral argument for FS. Therefore, one can only conclude you assume it is a psychosexual argument masquerading as a "cerebral" one. Therefore, I must be one of those types, logically. You go on to further lead the witness in post #74, insinuating then that any attempt to make FS cerebral is the province of those who are attempting to convince the world of the good in FS.
Quote: My point there is for those who support FS due to psychosexual reasons to leave it at that, and not make it a mission to convince others cerebrally for their motivation comes from a different place.
That is not correct.
I am open to hearing a cerebral argument for female superiority but have not yet seen a resilient one. Arguments I have seen lead me to think those making the arguments do not have a solid cerebral basis for their belief and are trying to provide a cerebral basis for something they have not chosen to believe from cerebral roots but psychosexual and emotional roots. In such a case, I think a person is better off simply saying they believe it because they enjoy it versus trying to make a cerebral case for it.
If one has indeed come to this belief based on cerebral considerations then one should be able to outline that cerebral path and make a case. I have not yet seen a convincing case made.
quote:
One deals with the dimorphism and behavioral contrasts brought about from sexual states, the other is about cosmetic differences of skin color / ethnicity / culture.
Those who advocate racial superiority believe that whichever race they advocate is superior due to genetic traits. To back their claim, they, too, point to uncontrolled statistical data that has not been critically examined.
quote:
I'm capable of reciprocating the sentiment, but rather than focus on your lack of what I feel is an impressive counterargument
To say I am unimpressed by your counterargument is a fair statement. Perhaps unimpressed is not as good a choice of word as unconvinced for sake how it comes across but, frankly, unimpressed better describes my response to your counterargument. For you to refute a point simply by asking for a survey that is unlikely to exist, as you acknowledge, while you make numerous claims which could be challenged by a similar demand for a survey is an ineffective counterargument. If you feel my counterargument lacks merit, point out how it lacks merit, or explain the reasoning behind your position like I did when I responded to you.
To recap, you claimed that because there are men who want to worship women, female superiority must be a reality. I disagreed and, as part of my reasoning, I pointed to larger portions of the population that do not believe in FS. Your response was that I could not prove a larger portion of the population does not believe in FS unless I conduct a survey of every person on the planet and ensure that they are responding truthfully (perhaps I should conduct this survey with a lie detector?). It is this response to my claim that FS is in the minority which I call unimpressive.
quote:
And there is a reasonable explanation for that: humans are creatures that collectively create deities to worship. A need to worship is deeply ingrained in our psychology and social behavior.
Fair enough and I agree about this tendency. However, this tendency does not make case in favor of your claim but rather one against it. Just as some project this need for a deity upon fire, mythical gods, or supernatural entities, some might project this need for a deity upon a woman. So one could use your reasoning perhaps to make an argument that there exists a divine power but not to say that female superiority is a fact of nature.
quote:
Are we now getting to the point now where your argument is—how shall I say—drifting from the cerebral realm? ;-)
The comment about the brewery was inspired by a memory of a guy in college who claimed pulling over on the freeway when passing a brewery and getting out of his car to bow towards it, which was somewhat funny. I had other comments for sake of levity in my post.
Whether it was for sake of funniness or not, the cerebral basis of my point holds: just because some see an entity to be an object of worship--whether it is fire, an idol, or even a brewery (if someone truly thinks that)--does not mean that this object is worthy of worship as a fact of nature.
Rather than try to suggest the discussion is drifting from the cerebral realm, how about addressing the cerebral points about why I think your point about the fact of nature does not hold?
quote:
First, assuming that number is accurate, what percentage of the population is "into BDSM" is irrelevant, I'd say, for as you alluded previously in this thread, belief in the Female as the better sex expands well outside of the trappings of BDSM. As for the lack of your global statistics, I will assume sanely that you couldn't produce them.
That number comes from an old Kinsey study from around the 50s which actually put the number closer to 20% and with criteria that was so broad where even an interest in scratching was enough--the 25% represents a conservative estimate based on that source. A more recent study done across roughly 20,000 sexually active adults in Australia in this decade reported the number of people who had been active in BDSM (versus having an interest in it) to be less than 2%. While one can question how reliable each number is, one can also compare the number of people who frequent BDSM personals or porn with the number of people on mainstream personals or porn to get a sense for how large a segment of population do BDSMers constitute. BDSM is discussed as one of the paraphilias in human sexuality courses in college and is presented as a minority population. I have never encountered any information that would suggest otherwise. If you believe that BDSMers represent a larger portion of the population, what is your basis for thinking so?
Do you have any comment about my reasoning that those who believe in female superiority in turn form a portion of this subset of the population? What do you think about how the numbers of Mf and Fm compare within the BDSM community? I believe the Mf numbers to exceed the Fm numbers. If what you describe is a force of nature, why this imbalance?
Yes, there are those who believe in female superiority outside BDSM, or a pagan religion based on worship of a woman or a priestess within or without BDSM. These numbers, however, also form a small portion of the population. Demographic data about religions practiced will say as much.
Lastly, to have meaningful statistics, one does not need to speak with every individual on the planet as you suggested. With an appropriately chosen sample, one can find reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error. Any statistics we have that show size of the BDSM population, or size of various religious followings have value even if not every single person on the planet was interviewed.
quote:
Yes, thank you. It's hard to keep up with the parameters being constantly changed by arguments from phantom straw people who say odd things. Be that as it may, you were comparing humans to cows and horses (we need to consider beer breweries into the mix now too, apparently). Up next: mole voles. Mole voles do not reproduce with the SRY gene, because there is no SRY gene to be found in their chromosomes. The question in relation to this discovery is whether or not human evolution will follow that path. Until it does—again—it is best to speak of the same genotype.
To simply say that an X chromosome is larger than a Y chromosome does not make for an adequate argument for female superiority. When one makes such a statement and is then not able to explain it any further when questioned suggests to me that one does not have a cerebral belief in female supremacy, but a psychosexual or emotional belief and is saying things that seem to support that belief (perhaps they heard or read without understanding it) without really grasping what that information means.
To say that there is a mole vole that reproduces with the SRY gene does not make for an adequate argument for female superiority, and the paragraph above similarly applies.
To review, my comment was directed at past arguments where one was not able to provide a line of reasoning to their claim or explain how what they cited demonstrated female superiority. Again, let's forget those who are not here. It seems like you know about the matter more than the average person. What benefit does the larger size of the X chromosome bring?
quote:
We could start with social / behavioral metrics, using statistical crime reports here, here and here, differences in male and Female brains, here and here, and genetic differences here, just to start.
Your last source requires a subscription.
So then by your metric, a man who has greater social perception than you, performs better at timed tasks than you, has a lesser tendency to be aggressive and a greater tendency to be law-abiding, whether for cultural reasons or for biological reasons, would be superior to you. Let's also assume he is of better health. Would you then want to worship this man?
For you, what came first--the desire for FS, or the information you present as the cerebral basis for your belief?
quote:
Few men serve as good surrogates.
Do tell about the few who do.
To recap, I have similarly seen arguments by those who made a case for male superiority and male supremacy. They too focused on differences between the sexes that were advantageous to the sex for which they argued. You provide more meaningful data than I have seen in past arguments for FS and raise some good points, but your responses suggest you have picked data to suit your psychosexual belief and that you have not applied critical thinking to this data. In particular, I point to your initial comments and follow-up comments about dangerous jobs as an example of why I have reached this conclusion. It leaves me to wonder how much or not you have done the same with other points you make.
For instance, based on the first site you give about crime statistics, you would see that the number of murders committed by men is about 3 times that by women. It seems your explanation for this difference is simply the biological differences between men and women. How would you explain the difference in crime rates across the Northeast and the South? Are there just that many more men in the South? How would you explain the differences across races? Would you then attribute these differences to simply be a matter of race like you do with sex? How would you explain men who are opposed to violence and women who resort to violence? It's not clear to me how much you have really thought about what all contributes to this difference. A source you cite also says that while men have a greater tendency for physical aggression, women are more likely to participate in psychological aggression. If aggression is a male phenomenon versus a human phenomenon, why this difference? I recall reading a study that reported that men from the South (more of an honor-based culture) are more likely to respond with violence to an insult in comparison to men from the North. It also said that mothers of the South were more likely to teach their sons this value, or to encourage this behavior. How does your theory explain why mothers from the South are more likely to encourage this behavior? Why is violence on the rise amongst girls? Is it because societal trends are making it more permissible for them to do so, or is that they are spending too much time with boys and it is an effect of bad company? I don't claim that men do not have a greater tendency for physical violence but do ask if you are oversimplifying the situation or exaggerating the meaningfulness of the statistic to favor your argument, and overlooking statistics that do not.
Your point that women must be superior because when they became more involved with society, society moved forward (versus the point that when more members of society become involved, society moves forward) also leaves me to wonder how much you have thought about the data you present to support your argument.
As you talk about differences between the sexes, I see no indication that you have taken a broader, balanced look and considered matters that go each way but I could be wrong. Have you?
Sure, there are points that favor each sex but I have not seen a compelling argument for either case. I continue to believe in the concept of synergy at an individual and collective level. That with men and women is greater than that with men only or women only, which is what I mean when I refer to synergy at a collective level.
Social psychology treats some attributes as traditionally male and some as traditionally female, which may have stemmed from stereotypical roles and cultural expectations or from statistical distribution of such attributes when this categorization was done. Persons who have a strong balance of each category of attributes are able to respond effectively to a greater number of situations, which is what I mean by synergy at an individual level. As societal barriers for each sex to assume attributes traditionally associated with the other sex lessen and as the collective synergy leads to new behavior models, I expect we will continue to see an increase in collective and individual synergy with time.
Cheers,
Sea
< Message edited by undergroundsea -- 12/29/2009 9:49:53 AM >
|
RE: female Supremecy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread