Sexism...society or human nature?

[DudeistBelieve]

snip

snip

I am just going to toss this out there but if you are having a child with a person and you don't trust them enough that you have even the slightest uncertainty that it is you biological child you likely shouldn't be having the child together to begin with.

However my girlfriend just informed me that the DNA tests can be used for genetic screening for any flaws that could be fixed so it can be used for health reasons. (My girlfriend studies biological technologies which includes DNA)

While that's a true argument, and I don't disagree with it, thats entirely not the point. Think about it, Person A lies, Person B believes in the lie and tries to do the right thing only to be screwed over. Person B is told he has to pay for the lie the next 18 years.

Lets not even mention the damage this would do to the child.

There is absolutely no reason not elect to get a paternity test done at birth, save for the woman not feeling like her man trusts her enough. Government mandatory removes that argument.

Also, I'm done talking about this sense I'm pretty content that I'm right and made my point.

#DerailedTheThread #Sorry

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Government mandatory removes that argument.

And making it mandatory by law puts unnecessary requirements on people. Legislation simply because you're unhappy if you don't know 100% is silly. Deal with it, it's a personal issue not a matter for the government.

What are you trying to argue with me about?

What feminism is truly about? It's about equality for women. EQUALITY. I don't see your counter argument about it making them superior.

About whats unfair? Women are generally attached to their vaginas 24/7, and outside of cases of Rape, know who have fucked them. Men don't and can't possibly know, but the moment they say the child is theirs they are legally responsible for it... EVEN IF THEY FIND OUT LATER ITS NOT THEIRS. Doing it as birth saves a lot of time and headaches for everyone.

Now you're arguing that his a big government argument. #Really? #Really?! #REALLY?


What is your counter argument, SIR? Why not instead of just going line by line trying to discredit me on fine points like spelling (Oh snap!) you actually post an argument about how either Feminism isn't about Gender equality. how taking a woman at their word is truly equal, despite the potential fuck-overy.

And don't do it line by line. Just write out a couple paragraphs explaining what your point is. Am I defining feminism wrong? How am I defining equality wrong in this situation? How am I defining equality wrong in this situation according to you? Ectera.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Government mandatory removes that argument.

And making it mandatory by law puts unnecessary requirements on people. Legislation simply because you're unhappy if you don't know 100% is silly. Deal with it, it's a personal issue not a matter for the government.

What are you trying to argue with me about?

What feminism is truly about? It's about equality for women. EQUALITY. I don't see your counter argument about it making them superior.

Because you need a god damn argument proving that it it would make them superior. Let me educate you a bit. Do you know what a counterargument is good for? For proving a point that someone else made wrong. Now do you know how you make a point? Hint: It isn't by just saying "OMG it's about superiority if they disagree with me!" So you see the problem? You've failed to make your point. I point this out. That is sufficient counterargument. It leaves you nowhere.

About whats unfair? Women are generally attached to their vaginas 24/7, and outside of cases of Rape, know who have fucked them. Men don't and can't possibly know, but the moment they say the child is theirs they are legally responsible for it... EVEN IF THEY FIND OUT LATER ITS NOT THEIRS. Doing it as birth saves a lot of time and headaches for everyone.

It's amazing how many times you can repeat the same damn thing and still ignore responses, isn't it? I pointed out why that wasn't unfair already, the way the information was gathered is not something that makes it unfair for one person to know more. I also pointed out that you could complain about the legal system instead. I wonder why you feel the need to never address the fact that there's another target you could go after. Do you dislike women that much that the concept of complaining about anything else is foreign to you?

Now you're arguing that his a big government argument. #Really? #Really?! #REALLY?

I said there's no need for the government to be involved. Repeating the word 'Really' doesn't suddenly make their involvement necessary. A surprise, I know, but I had to break it to you since you seem intent on believing that inane comments like yours make for a proper reason for the government to be involved.

What is your counter argument, SIR? Why not instead of just going line by line trying to discredit me on fine points like spelling (Oh snap!) you actually post an argument about how either Feminism isn't about Gender equality. how taking a woman at their word is truly equal, despite the potential fuck-overy.

You seem to have issues reading. I'll be generous and explain it to you instead of scolding you and telling you to read my posts for a change.

First, you seem to have missed the fact that the part I replied to about spelling didn't really need addressing. It was you blabbing about what feminism was, not you proving that there in fact was an inequality.

Secondly, all I need to disprove your argument that is unequal. I already made points against it. You have failed to address them. I made a point on the potential for people to get fucked over being something that you failed to complain about. You just complain about the women, not the system that allows people to get fucked over. It's really sad.

Also, you failed to show that there was any gender inequality.

And don't do it line by line. Just write out a couple paragraphs explaining what your point is. Am I defining feminism wrong? How am I defining equality wrong in this situation? How am I defining equality wrong in this situation according to you? Ectera.

I already pointed out every time you made a comment about equality that had any sort of substance why it wasn't unequal. Don't like the format? Too bad, you've done nothing to endear yourself to me. I pointed out how one side being more informed was not a matter of gender equality. If you're too damn lazy to have read it before I'm not going to repeat it again.

Uh... from what I gathered your whole point was that I should stop "whining".

That clearly the status quo of just believing the woman at her word is equal and fair (How is this equal? Aside from the man consenting to choosing to believe her blindly over the test, which I already established is rather foolish.)

and that instead of suggestion a government mandatory that a DNA test is done at birth I should be demanding that a refund be allowed if it happens after the fact... Which makes no sense to me because thats just government bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy.

What? Are you trying to say it's purely a matter of love & trust? Not in a world where you have to pay for a kid that isn't yours sir. Under those circumstances, there is no reason not to get a DNA test done, either voluntarily or otherwise. When presented with these hard facts, no woman has a fair right to be upset about them not being "trusted".

Unless you have a point I haven't understood, sir, then:


Goodnight

 

[Nouw]

I think it's a combination of the human nature to be assholes and society giving humans a specific way to be assholes.

Brilliantly put Kahuna Burger. Now that I've seen Pulp Fiction, I can truly enjoy your name and avvie.

 

[Fleshy]

Whether it's one or the other isn't really important. Just because some behavior can be explained with evolution does not make it more or less wrong and/or hypocritical. That said I think that we have a tendency to overemphasize more contemporary (society) explanations for unconscious behavior because, again, pointing to evolution makes us think of it as final and a justification of said behavior. This then leads us to approach some issues from a less than optimal angle.

So yes, our sex dynamics are deeper rooted than just being "society", but no that doesn't make them unchangeable or more justified.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

exactally...like racism is actualy very "natural" for us...but its certainly not right..

I think it's a combination of the human nature to be assholes and society giving humans a specific way to be assholes.

Brilliantly put Kahuna Burger. Now that I've seen Pulp Fiction, I can truly enjoy your name and avvie.

huh...I noticed the avatar but never the name...ahahaha

that is one tasty burger though

 

[Zen Toombs]

this article

http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

This one is amused by the fact that this one opened up the cracked article as this thread was loading, intending to leave it there. Now I have to do an actual response....

Anyways, in my opinion sexism is something mostly grown out of society. However, men and women ARE different, and that's okay. To ignore that is kindof silly - but that doesn't mean that women and men should be treated better or worse. It's just like race or hair color or whatever. There are differences, and they should be acknowledged, but those things don't make others better or worse. They just make them different, and different isn't bad.

That started to turn babbley, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[Vault101]

this article

http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

This one is amused by the fact that this one opened up the cracked article as this thread was loading, intending to leave it there. Now I have to do an actual response....

.

whats with the Hanar act?

I do think an important thing to ask though is which differences are biological and which are due to how one is raised and society's view on gender.

and that is somthing that comes under argument.....(and generalisations)

like "men are better at videogames because a certain part of their brain is developed better" now I dont know if there is any merit to that...but I dont really see it as a basis for anythign except pissing people off (though I'll happly admit I kind of suck at videogames)

 

[Zen Toombs]

Anyways, in my opinion sexism is something mostly grown out of society. However, men and women ARE different, and that's okay. To ignore that is kindof silly - but that doesn't mean that women and men should be treated better or worse. It's just like race or hair color or whatever. There are differences, and they should be acknowledged, but those things don't make others better or worse. They just make them different, and different isn't bad.

That started to turn babbley, but I hope you get the idea.

I do think an important thing to ask though is which differences are biological and which are due to how one is raised and society's view on gender.

I think most are from culture or society. Some of it could be biological, but most would be societal. Biological differences are like... guys being stronger than girls on average and taller on average, or like girls having to deal with pregnancy and bleeding once a month, or like the effects of standard testosterone/estrogen/other hormone levels. Those have some effect, but nowhere near the effect we see thanks to society.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Considering humans create society, doesn't that question answer itself?

 

[manic_depressive13]

-snip-

That's got to be some of the stupidest crap I've ever read. If I were you, I would be extremely upset with whoever told me that. What basis do you even have for believing early humans were monogamous?

Anyway Vault, if various historians are to be believed, back in the day when humans were hunter-gatherers, there was no sexism. Women played a central role to survival. They gathered roots, fruits, berries and generally provided the staple meal. The men went hunting in an attempt to obtain much needed protein. If they failed they could always fall back on the food that was gathered by the women.

However, when people eventually stopped foraging and started farming instead, it was the big strong men who were the most capable of the intense physical work. And when they gathered a surplus it was the big strong men who controlled it. And when they were were attacked by other groups who wanted their surplus it was the big strong men who fought. Women's primary role became staying in the house so they could breed more big strong men. By the time it stopped being important to be big and strong, sexism had already been institutionalised.

So no, it isn't 'human nature' to be sexist, but even if it were, it's just another part of our frankly disgusting nature that needs repressing.

Edit: Oh yeah and cracked sucks.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Societal in nature, feeding off of natural inclinations. The natural differences led to different roles in developing societies. As these societies progressed, most developed greater degrees of inequality and more rigid roles of all sorts. Most modern roles have a certain degree of connection to those original roles, and use the same justification, but the majority of the associated traits are shown to be largely socialized, such as men having overwhelming sex drives.