Sexism...society or human nature?

[DudeistBelieve]

The only problem with the role reversal is he can't turn around and be able to convince you the child he had with another woman is actually yours, and keep you monetarily responsible for it... Unless one is really really dense.

Also hey, case by case basis. Sure YOU don't cheat on your boyfriend and I'm not saying everyone women does or that even most do. However, PEOPLE cheat. PEOPLE lie. It's idiotic that in this day and age with the technology we have we don't just do this automatically when the babies born, it does nothing more then protect not only the man from potentially getting fucked over (because yeah, they'll be stuck with that shit for life even if they find out later) and also- hey the child from being emotionally scarred if later they find out the man they thought was their father and grew attached to them suddenly resents them.

People do cheat and lie, and if you have a GOOD REASON to believe your mate has cheated and it resulted in pregnancy then you should do a DNA test, but you should not just do one if you have no proof/reason to believe that they had cheated.

If you resent the kid, there is something wrong with you. Its not the kids fault.

Actually on the drive to college I did think of something that supports your counter argument, STDs and the like. So, yeah there should be a precedent set that people get tested for that and what not, cause it would suck to get Aids because your partner was cheating behind your back... though we do have laws that one must disclose having aids before intercourse. *shrug* not the same thing but you get the idea.

Your absolutely right in terms of strictly relationship speaking, that yeah its probably not the healthiest thing in the world... But with the way I look at it, with the circumstances as is, the stakes are to high on the man's personal liberty to not do the test regardless. Also in my perfect world, this topic would of been addressed in a well established relationship already not something one springs on their spouse upon the birth of the child... but I'm straying into personal beliefs, keeping non-negotiables on front street and what not.

a government requirement would kind of eliminate those negative feelings, I feel, cause it removes a choice that really... just taking the test is beneficial to all parties unless someones lying, ya know? But I suppose that gives up peoples right to choose to believe in a lie and/or choose to stay ignorant of a potential reality. Oh but I've stretched this argument about as far as it can go.

Prehaps I'm using the wrong word, but I imagine when this situation happens the screwed over guy doesn't exactly want to spend time with the kid he's forced to pay for. But now I'm just supposing.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

>>Argument for DNA screening at birth in order to ensure that responsibility for the child is owed by the male party of a relationship goes here<<

Good stuff.

I read as much of your argument with that knee-jerk reaction guy as I could stomach before my eyes hurt with all the rolling they were doing. I see your point. I've been in a relationship that involved a miscarry, and even though I'm certain that the child was mine, I still wouldn't have minded a DNA test for peace of mind. It isn't about trust at all, it's about being on the same level as my partner, who knows without a doubt.

Also, that relationship did eventually end badly. While I was certain that the child was mine and content to sweep the desire for a piece of paper vindicating that certainty under the rug as 'silly' while we were together, I'd have felt differently right now if I were paying so much child support that I couldn't possibly court another partner or move on with my life (this happened to a friend of my Dad's), while she was living in our old house, with custody and perhaps a new partner, for a total of TWO adult wages plus my child support...

Yeah, I imagine that and suddenly, being able to ask for a test that means I can be as sure as my partner is able to be that the child is mine seems much more vital. Those circumstances would be (and are, for too many men) horrible and unjust in any and all cases, but I wouldn't be able to bear them at all if I had any doubt. I'd quit my job in a heartbeat.

Since we have the technology, why not use it to erase all doubt for both parties? What's the problem? Are the men who put their trust in the wrong woman not deserving of this simple, automatic protection? To those who would say no... What the hell is wrong with you?

I appreciate that you saw my point, sir.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

-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.

It's just a theory, but I think sexism sprouting from man's insecurity and over-reaction makes more sense to me then just saying "they were bigger, stronger, and controlled means of production."

Simply because through out history, generally the mankind doesn't de-humanized or objectify another human being unless it involves insecurity and negative emotions. Slavery for example, they dehumanized other races to justify the horrible things they were doing so they wouldn't feel bad about it.

It's human nature when in situations one doesn't control to seek to master it. We don't like feeling insecure, we don't like the unknown, we don't like to feel bad. Sexism and what not is a natural reaction. Don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning it.

Feeling insecure over one's mate makes more sense to me then just that man oppressed women cause they were stronger and they could.

 

[Lieju]

And honestly can you name a good reason it isn't just done automatically?

It costs money. Paternity testing costs 400-2000 dollars(in the US), depending on where you live and what kind of testing it is.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

And honestly can you name a good reason it isn't just done automatically?

It costs money. Paternity testing costs 400-2000 dollars(in the US), depending on where you live and what kind of testing it is.

In a world where the U.S. government demands it done, they can just as easily mandate it be covered by health insurance... which currently under ObamaCare we're all forced to have anyway. Pay a co-pay of like 200 dollars.

(and yes, I feel sick advocating big government, but in a very few rare circumstances I think it's necessary.)

 

[manic_depressive13]

It's just a theory, but I think sexism sprouting from man's insecurity and over-reaction makes more sense to me then just saying "they were bigger, stronger, and controlled means of production."

Simply because through out history, generally the mankind doesn't de-humanized or objectify another human being unless it involves insecurity and negative emotions. Slavery for example, they dehumanized other races to justify the horrible things they were doing so they wouldn't feel bad about it.

It's human nature when in situations one doesn't control to seek to master it. We don't like feeling insecure, we don't like the unknown, we don't like to feel bad. Sexism and what not is a natural reaction. Don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning it.

Feeling insecure over one's mate makes more sense to me then just that man oppressed women cause they were stronger and they could.

I'm a bit confused. What does slavery have to do with 'insecurity and negative emotions'? Slavery is a result of greed.

There is no evidence that paleolithic humans valued monogamy or gave a shit whose child they were raising (in fact, everyone raised the children together, since they lived in small tribes). However, even if we are willing to project absurdly anachronistic values on people who have no reason to hold such values, there is a very basic issue with your argument. If someone has a healthy amount of respect for a woman he would not assume she has been philandering around while he was away. You are claiming that misogyny stems from man's insecurities, yet such insecurities would never arise if he weren't already misogynistic enough to assume his significant other would behave in such a way. This is a circular argument.

It makes much more sense to suggest that women were gradually oppressed because it made more sense for them to stay at home and raise the children, which eventually led to the belief that they were not capable of much else, than to claim that, since modern humans emerged, all men have been retarded man-children who subjugate people because they can't be certain who they've had sex with.

 

[Lieju]

And honestly can you name a good reason it isn't just done automatically?

It costs money. Paternity testing costs 400-2000 dollars(in the US), depending on where you live and what kind of testing it is.

In a world where the U.S. government demands it done, they can just as easily mandate it be covered by health insurance... which currently under ObamaCare we're all forced to have anyway. Pay a co-pay of like 200 dollars.

(and yes, I feel sick advocating big government, but in a very few rare circumstances I think it's necessary.)

I kinda think there are better things to spend that money...
Also there's the matter of privacy. Is it the goverment's bussiness to know that? And not every couple want to know it, and even if they are not genetically linked, people can still be a family.

I know a man whose wife gave birth to a baby that most likely wasn't his, but he chose to raise the baby as his daughter, and I suspect he didn't want to make his wife's affair public to preserve the marriage. Also the actual father wasn't going to be any part of the baby's life.

I think the father should have all the right to demand the paternity test, but I think making them mandatory is just an invasion of privacy and wasted money.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's just a theory, but I think sexism sprouting from man's insecurity and over-reaction makes more sense to me then just saying "they were bigger, stronger, and controlled means of production."

Simply because through out history, generally the mankind doesn't de-humanized or objectify another human being unless it involves insecurity and negative emotions. Slavery for example, they dehumanized other races to justify the horrible things they were doing so they wouldn't feel bad about it.

It's human nature when in situations one doesn't control to seek to master it. We don't like feeling insecure, we don't like the unknown, we don't like to feel bad. Sexism and what not is a natural reaction. Don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning it.

Feeling insecure over one's mate makes more sense to me then just that man oppressed women cause they were stronger and they could.

I'm a bit confused. What does slavery have to do with 'insecurity and negative emotions'? Slavery is a result of greed.

There is no evidence that paleolithic humans valued monogamy or gave a shit whose child they were raising (in fact, everyone raised the children together, since they lived in small tribes). However, even if we are willing to project such absurdly anachronistic values on people who have no reason to hold such values, there is a very basic issue with your argument. If someone has a healthy amount of respect for a woman he would not assume she has been philandering around while he was away. You are claiming that misogyny stems from man's insecurities, yet such insecurities would never arise if he weren't already misogynistic enough to assume his significant other would behave in such a way. This is a circular argument.

It makes much more sense to suggest that women were gradually oppressed because it made more sense for them to stay at home and raise the children, which eventually led to the belief that they were not capable of much else, than to claim that, since modern humans emerged, all men have been retarded man-children who subjugate people because they can't be certain who they've had sex with.

I only brought it up because it was another situation where man had to justify treating another human being horribly. Probably a poor comparison on my part, maybe.

And hey man, it's not my theory just something I heard and makes sense to me. But the insecurity arises once man rises the baby doesn't come randomly through magic after offering chicken bones to the sun, that it happens from procreation... And that early sentiment just carried over to it being the norm over years and years. Even today, isn't most misogyny stem from men who are intimidated and trying to control women?

It just makes more sense to me then saying it stems from early man consistently underestimating the potential of the female counterparts. This is just one opinion and I'm just one man spouting it, so take it with as much salt as you wish.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I found the article interesting, but also found that I don't seem to care about most of the points, as they have nothing to do with my mindset, well most of it, except I have put some concessions into my life for women but that was just to stop them bitching at me about not smelling decent. Other than that I just do what I want to do because it's fun, and I get women when I want women, because in return for me having my own shit going on, it makes me seem less clingy, and the fact that I make myself happy, shows that I can make others happy too... Don't need music(though I do play bass from time to time cuz I just love the sound of the damn thing) or sports(I try to keep fit and I do some martial arts drills so I can defend myself with ease when I need to.) and as far as "career success" I got NOTHING, and I dropped out of highschool in grade 9. yet does this reduce how happy I am, or how hard it is for me to "get laid"? No... Not really.

So yeah, a lot of generalisations from the standpoint from the mind of a man who is insecure in his limited knowledge of women, and his lack of understanding of how to live a truly fulfilling life... Like most men.

Also my capcha said "tickle the ivories" ... That doesn't sound suggestive at all.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm absolutely not against a man who has doubts getting a DNA test.
However, I resent the implication that cause a woman has autonomy over her own vagina, every man should have at least some level of doubt.
The majority of men would not need this test, and putting it in to practice for everyone would just be a massive waste of money. I agree that men who have doubts should have the right to a test, and if a relationship splits up and a man may be forced to pay child support then he should absolutely request a DNA test if he wants one.

I feel sorry for the women whose partners are ready with the swab as soon as the cord is cut when they have done nothing untrustworthy. I don't know about them, but I wouldn't put up with that shit.

Actually, I'd be fine with it if a test performed after a split made all payments by the man up until then refundable by the woman. Then I'd say forget it at birth, because it can still be undertaken when it really matters, and injustices can be undone retroactively.

As it stands though, finding out you aren't the father after the fact doesn't help you at all- and that's fucked up.

On topic-- for the first time in the thread, my bad-- I want to put it down to society, but I'm not sure why I want to say that yet. I'll have to think about it a little more before I expound.

If it was done after a split there would be nothing to repay because it would be done before a child support order was set up. (Not that those are hard to get out of, I know several people including myself and my boyfriend whose fathers got away with paying diddly-squat).

I thought this wanting a DNA test thing might be a dude thing so I asked my boyfriend about it. He didn't really understand why a dude would want one if they did not suspect their partner had been playing away unless they were just massively insecure.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

OK, so I don't want to sound like that guy, but isn't everything we do human nature?

A society is the product of human nature. Adapting to a society is human nature. Doing what the society wants is human nature. Sexism is human nature. If it is in our nature or if it's because of a society is hard to tell, but indirectly it's human nature.

There is such a thing as an environment. That as a factor has influenced the development of society enough to say that things beyond our nature define us today. Technology is often as dependent on luck and location as it is on the inventive. Society and human nature are different, but closely tied concepts.

Sure, but how we respond to such things is human nature. Society is human nature put into a system. How we form a society on how a society works is human nature.

Once yes, but society is now way more self-replicating than most would admit, while human nature has changed over the years. Things like sex drive are no longer naturally determined, but are socially taught, and language has always been a capacity of humans rather than a thing we just do. Sometimes society even builds itself in ways that run entirely cointer to human nature, such as the Spartans or modern society.

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so I don't want to sound like that guy, but isn't everything we do human nature?

A society is the product of human nature. Adapting to a society is human nature. Doing what the society wants is human nature. Sexism is human nature. If it is in our nature or if it's because of a society is hard to tell, but indirectly it's human nature.

There is such a thing as an environment. That as a factor has influenced the development of society enough to say that things beyond our nature define us today. Technology is often as dependent on luck and location as it is on the inventive. Society and human nature are different, but closely tied concepts.

Sure, but how we respond to such things is human nature. Society is human nature put into a system. How we form a society on how a society works is human nature.

Once yes, but society is now way more self-replicating than most would admit, while human nature has changed over the years. Things like sex drive are no longer naturally determined, but are socially taught, and language has always been a capacity of humans rather than a thing we just do. Sometimes society even builds itself in ways that run entirely cointer to human nature, such as the Spartans or modern society.

OK, so clearly you did not understand me. A society is the product of human nature. Changes that occur over time in a society is due to human nature. If we could rule out human nature as a factor when we're talking society then a society would always stay the same. Also if you really believe that sex drive is all society then you're wrong. Or at least that is according to my professor in human behavior biology.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

OK, so I don't want to sound like that guy, but isn't everything we do human nature?

A society is the product of human nature. Adapting to a society is human nature. Doing what the society wants is human nature. Sexism is human nature. If it is in our nature or if it's because of a society is hard to tell, but indirectly it's human nature.

There is such a thing as an environment. That as a factor has influenced the development of society enough to say that things beyond our nature define us today. Technology is often as dependent on luck and location as it is on the inventive. Society and human nature are different, but closely tied concepts.

Sure, but how we respond to such things is human nature. Society is human nature put into a system. How we form a society on how a society works is human nature.

Once yes, but society is now way more self-replicating than most would admit, while human nature has changed over the years. Things like sex drive are no longer naturally determined, but are socially taught, and language has always been a capacity of humans rather than a thing we just do. Sometimes society even builds itself in ways that run entirely cointer to human nature, such as the Spartans or modern society.

OK, so clearly you did not understand me. A society is the product of human nature. Changes that occur over time in a society is due to human nature. If we could rule out human nature as a factor when we're talking society then a society would always stay the same. Also if you really believe that sex drive is all society then you're wrong. Or at least that is according to my professor in human behavior biology.

What I'm saying is that they are connected but different things, and my example is simply a favorite that can never be proven. Change would still occur anyway. Did human nature invent the plow or the steamboat? Those two inventions completely changed the stages of society. In all honesty I think the two are fairly inseparable and both add to and change each other, but it is still important to understand that both exist and sometimes do work independently of one another.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I think it?s both, really. Although, no misogynism here, some women really don?t help themselves either, self-objectification or otherwise.

Also, I don?t mean to be patronizing or anything, but biology really screwed women over, what with being physically weaker (in general), menstruation and pregnancy. I know a lot of women that?ll even say breasts can be a pain in the ass, despite how the disgustingly influential media obsesses over them. Not to mention having more to ?expose?, for lack of a better word. Guys don't have cleavage. For example, if a guy walks around wearing a pair of shorts showing his legs, the typical conservative douchebag would walk by without a second thought. If a woman does it, he?d think that she?s a whore with no self-respect.

As MovieBob said, double standards are damn near the only standards we have.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I thought this wanting a DNA test thing might be a dude thing so I asked my boyfriend about it. He didn't really understand why a dude would want one if they did not suspect their partner had been playing away unless they were just massively insecure.

In my personal case, it's because I would need proof that the surgery I got and test results that supported it after the fact were completely botched, in which case they'll be footing the bill for my unwanted kid. Otherwise, the woman screwed with another dude and sees me as the better father figure.

Perhaps they were swingers and it happened a certain time after an orgy. Perhaps they were in an open relationship and he's not positive it's his. Perhaps he wants to make sure his kid didn't inherent certain hereditary traits. At this point I'm not sure the reasons really matter.

Asking for the test isn't an insinuation of anything in of itself. You suggesting the relationship being over after the fact (in previous replies) also points to your own issues of fair trust in your own relationship. The test is a reasonable request; ending a relationship because of that request is unreasonable.

But I don't know you or your relationship, that's just how I think. Trust is certainly a tricky cat to deal with, but I think offering that trust with a little evidence every now and then is a good thing.

 

[Section Crow]

always thought things like sexism are psychological but the act of portraying the basic act of sexism (and other forms of discrimination) was human nature it was merely a choice of the way they were brought up that choose what the hate was towards.

so in short, i think that hating is human nature but hating towards something is nurture or society in this case

 

[Phasmal]

Asking for the test isn't an insinuation of anything in of itself. You suggesting the relationship being over after the fact (in previous replies) also points to your own issues of fair trust in your own relationship. The test is a reasonable request; ending a relationship because of that request is unreasonable.

But I don't know you or your relationship, that's just how I think. Trust is certainly a tricky cat to deal with, but I think offering that trust with a little evidence every now and then is a good thing.

I wouldn't say its not an insinuation of anything. If you have no doubts there would be no reason for one, so it kind of insinuates you have doubts. (Assuming they want it for DNA purposes and are not swingers or open).

Oh, I doubt I'd end my relationship over it, but my boyfriend would have some serious explaining to do as to why he would want a test if he trusted me. I'm pretty sure it would change things. Of course, I'd let him get one if he wanted. (But like I said I doubt he would because he doesn't understand why you would if you had no doubts, so I know if he did ask it would be because of doubts).

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so I don't want to sound like that guy, but isn't everything we do human nature?

A society is the product of human nature. Adapting to a society is human nature. Doing what the society wants is human nature. Sexism is human nature. If it is in our nature or if it's because of a society is hard to tell, but indirectly it's human nature.

There is such a thing as an environment. That as a factor has influenced the development of society enough to say that things beyond our nature define us today. Technology is often as dependent on luck and location as it is on the inventive. Society and human nature are different, but closely tied concepts.

Sure, but how we respond to such things is human nature. Society is human nature put into a system. How we form a society on how a society works is human nature.

Once yes, but society is now way more self-replicating than most would admit, while human nature has changed over the years. Things like sex drive are no longer naturally determined, but are socially taught, and language has always been a capacity of humans rather than a thing we just do. Sometimes society even builds itself in ways that run entirely cointer to human nature, such as the Spartans or modern society.

OK, so clearly you did not understand me. A society is the product of human nature. Changes that occur over time in a society is due to human nature. If we could rule out human nature as a factor when we're talking society then a society would always stay the same. Also if you really believe that sex drive is all society then you're wrong. Or at least that is according to my professor in human behavior biology.

What I'm saying is that they are connected but different things, and my example is simply a favorite that can never be proven. Change would still occur anyway. Did human nature invent the plow or the steamboat? Those two inventions completely changed the stages of society. In all honesty I think the two are fairly inseparable and both add to and change each other, but it is still important to understand that both exist and sometimes do work independently of one another.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't really been reading what I am saying. I feel no need to repeat what I said earlier since I have no doubt that you will ignore it or disagree no matter how many times I do so.