Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[desertlily]

Like I mentioned, I am not sure what you mean.

What I mean is that you stated as fact, that male heroes are the product of romance-novel-fantasies and that there's no such thing in real life. So do you believe that, or not?

Also: you've exchanged your attack on "patriarchal values" to one on "the dominant male archetype".........so then I'd like to change my inquiry to: "Would you please describe the exact manifestation of this "dominant male architype"?

[Inspector]

What I mean is that you stated as fact, that male heroes are the product of romance-novel-fantasies and that there's no such thing in real life.

She was lamenting their scarcity in real life.

Also: you've exchanged your attack on "patriarchal values"

Where did you get the idea it was an attack? You've mistaken her position for its opposite.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I see double question marks so you seem passionate about this. You would be perfectly comfortable being bested by a girl in a physical competition? Would you be able to feel romatic toward that particular girl?

ABSOLUTELY!! (Notice the double exclamations) ! (oh, theres another)

Being proficient at physical activity is a virtue for all men, not just males. Seeing this proficiency displayed by a female would be an incredible turn on for me. As an example I did this shoot of a couple of female boxers a few months ago and one of the boxers was very physically fit (maybe as strong as I am, possibly a little stronger in the legs. Could definately out distance run me, and positively kick my ass.) Her physique was semi-muscular but her body was still feminine. She had large breasts, long legs, wide hips, and a beautiful face. Her being physically fit (and strong) was a plus, not a detriment, as it did not take away from her femininity and was at balance with it. This is what I mean by smuggling "weakness" into the concept of femininity just because females are the weakER sex. Femininity does not represent strength, rather it concretizes "sexual beauty" (still a little ambiguous with that term but I'm working on it), but this does not mean that weakness need be included into the concept, only that the main theme of a feminine body is not centered around strength. Think of it in terms of a novel where the main theme of the novel is sexual exhaltation. This doesn't mean that since other novels center around human ingenuity the former novel can never say anything about human ingenuity. A novel must be looked at for what it is, just like the gender of a body (I use gender as a term denoting masculine/feminine as opposed to "sex" which denotes male/female, xx/xy) I know you think I am getting off on a straw-man tangent and I apologize for being so redundant, but I do think this point is key: it does not matter that females are weaker than males generally because in regards to human life physical strength is a very little consequence and in the context of a woman with full use of her mind a female is incredibly strong and equally as strong as a man.

[Inspector]

Seeing this proficiency displayed by a female would be an incredible turn on for me.

To be clear, what do you think of these ladies?

[IAmMetaphysical]

They are masculine, the one on the left moreso than the other. I am not attracted to masculinity sexually, so they do nothing for me. To be clear this and this are retarded.

Edited February 10, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[Inspector]

They are masculine, the one on the left moreso than the other. I am not attracted to masculinity sexually, so they do nothing for me.

I would have thought so. But doesn't this mean that you find man-level strength in a woman unattractive? How is this distinct from my position? (I don't know if you can answer that, since I don't think you understand what my position is; I don't think I understand what your is.)

To be clear this and this are retarded.

Hah, yes. Steroids and bad silicone jobs don't represent to me an actualization of bodily health and sexual identity, either. It's like a characature.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It's like a characature.

Exactly.

I don't think "man-level" strength is an accurate formulation of what those women possess. The reason I don't find them all that attractive (the one on the right is slightly attractive) is because they don't have neough feminine traits, not necessarily because they have big muscles/wide shoulders etc. My attracttion to femininity is not a result of a rejection of the masculine. So its not that they posses man-level anything, its because they don't posses many feminine traits. That one boxer I mentioned had a very muscular body, just short of the build of the woman on the right, but her shoulder to waist to hip ratio was more feminine, and she had larger breasts, etc.

[Inspector]

That one boxer I mentioned had a very muscular body, just short of the build of the woman on the right, but her shoulder to waist to hip ratio was more feminine, and she had larger breasts, etc.

Well, you've certainly integrated your ideas, I'll give you that. I don't agree, as I'm sure you know. Although it is not primary in defining the feminine, I do think that "not masculine" is definately part of it because the two are derived (in my formulation) from the differentiation of the genders. For instance, I'm repulsed by a woman with that much muscle no matter how many other feminine traits she has.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Obviously femininity is not masculinity but here is where our disagreement turns to the actual nature of what gender is. I see it as an overall theme to a body so where there can be elements of strength in a female body and elements of "sex" in a male body, the overall theme determines whether not the body is feminine or masculine, to find this out would be somewhat quantitative in nature.

[desertlily]

She was lamenting their scarcity in real life.

Where did you get the idea it was an attack? You've mistaken her position for its opposite.

Cool.......this must be a romance-novel-fantasy-discussion, because a knight-in-shining-armor has come to the rescue of the lady in distress.

Then everybody changes the subject. Like my son's playmate, who, when confronted with something she doesn't want to hear, points up to the sky and says, "Oh!....look!!!.....a cloud that looks just like my punky-doll!"

Meanwhile, the lady-in-distress has vanished. Because she wants to be able to write really dumb PC man-hate without ever being challenged.

Rumpelschtolskin!

Edited February 11, 2007 by desertlily

[Cogito]

Cool.......this must be a romance-novel-fantasy-discussion, because a knight-in-shining-armor has come to the rescue of the lady in distress.

Then everybody changes the subject. Like my son's playmate, who, when confronted with something she doesn't want to hear, points up to the sky and says, "Oh!....look!!!.....a cloud that looks just like my punky-doll!"

Meanwhile, the lady-in-distress has vanished. Because she wants to be able to write really dumb PC man-hate without ever being challenged.

Rumpelschtolskin!

Word of advice? Read the thread before saying things like this. If you have, then you are either a moron or a mass-scale evasive, because there is absolutely no way you could think Sophia wants to write "PC man-hate". Also, try to use real words.

[desertlily]

Word of advice? Read the thread before saying things like this. If you have, then you are either a moron or a mass-scale evasive, because there is absolutely no way you could think Sophia wants to write "PC man-hate". Also, try to use real words.

Kindly refrain from calling me names, Mr/Madam-no-manners-at-all!

[softwareNerd]

Name calling ain't good, but let's keep that aside for a moment and examine the substantive arguments first.

You asked Sophia the following:

...male heroes. I wish there were more of them.......why do you seem to devalue the concept? Also: what, in your perception, are "patriarchal values" in real life (as opposed to in novels)?

However, Sophia was obviously speaking in favor of male heroes and also in favor of patriarchal values. For instance, in her post just before yours, she was speaking positively about these aspects of masculinity. She is not condemning romance novels either. She's simply pointing out that people (with their modern PC man-hate) are teaching their sons not to be masculine, but women still really want masculinity. So, while women as mothers might be working against the idea, they still seek that type of in their heroes -- for instance, when they read romance novels. From reading this threads, it's clear that Sophia thinks those heroes are a good thing.

She was actually arguing against the modern PC man-hate position, and speaking up in favor of: patriarchal values, love, relationship fidelity, and masculinity.

I'm not arguing for or against Sophia's point, I'm simply trying to point out that you seem to think she's arguing against your (implicit) position, while actually she's making your case in a very concrete and convincing manner. That explains her bewilderment at your question, because it appears that you're challenging her, while at the same time you appear to agree with her. I suggest you re-read her post that was just before yours, and you will see that she is speaking against the modern PC man-hate ideas. She confirms this when she replies enthusiastically to your wish for more male-heroes...

... "I wish there were more of them..."

So do I!

In essence, you mis-read or misunderstood what she was saying. You thought she was saying that "male heroes are the product of romance-novel-fantasies and that there's no such thing in real life". That is not what she implied. As I explained, in her post, she is clearly regretting the modern attitude and the fact that women have to look to novels since men are being taught to act less and less masculine. Surely there is no implication that there aren't any good guys around, the only implication is that the modern PC man-hate attitude is reducing the number of men who hold masculinity as good. Basically, Sophia's post is saying: there are more emasculated men around, but women don't want that...as evidenced by the heroes they want to read about in their romance novels.

So, you see, thinking she was on the opposite side of the argument, you seem to have become annoyed and referred to her as a "lady in distress" and referred to a male who was trying to make the point as a "knight-in-shining-armor". You also say she's "vanished... because she wants to be able to write really dumb PC man-hate without ever being challenged." Of course, it is obvious to most others on this thread that she was arguing against the PC man-hate position, and so calling her "dumb" is inaccurate (at best).

Therefore, when you finally say "Kindly refrain from calling me names, Mr/Madam-no-manners-at-all!", he'd be well within reason to say: "You started it, lady!"

I suggest that you take the substantive advice, which was to re-read the posts to which you are replying. You will discover that you've made a mistake in your assumptions about her position; intellectually, she's on your side of the argument.

[Cogito]

Kindly refrain from calling me names, Mr/Madam-no-manners-at-all!

I wasn't necessarily calling you names. I said

If you have, then you are either a moron or a mass-scale evasive

(Emphasis added)

And I stand by what I said. If you truly have read (or, at the time of your statement, had read) all of the posts in this topic, then you are either incapable(moron) or unwilling(mass-scale evasive) to abstract from Sophia's previous statements her general stance on the issue.

[Edit]

By the way, it's Mr.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Cogito

[aequalsa]

[Edit]

By the way, it's Mr.

Right. Cause otherwise it would be Cogita

[mrocktor]

Do you really not understand my meaning or are you just being contentious? Because my point was, which I have repeated several times, is that the existence of a hermaphrodite does not cause damage to men or women as concepts. The exception of a hermaphrodite does break the rule, but that is only relevent if you are, in fact, a hermaphrodite. For everyone else that is a man or a woman, the concepts men and women have useful meaning.

A hermaphrodite is not a man. And a hermaphrodite is not a woman. That is why it does not damage those concepts - it is not subsumed under them (incidentally, thats why it has its own word, its a different concept!).

Contrast that to what you are doing here. You are trying to establish a concept that is based on the "average", the "typical" - a concept that probably has very few actual referents. Lets use "masculinity" as an example. How many male humans are actually tall AND physically strong AND morally stalwart AND assertive AND heroic AND bearded AND smell funny AND enjoy disassembling carburators? And what is the status of the male that is not all of that?

Your concept is not a proper concept. You can't sort out existents into "masculine" and "non-masculine" except on a completely subjective basis. Not so with "man", "woman", "hermaphrodite". Those are proper concepts.

[Inspector]

Your concept is not a proper concept. You can't sort out existents into "masculine" and "non-masculine" except on a completely subjective basis.

Not true.

...[T]he masculine is the traits that distinguish a man-human from a woman-human and/or the behavior/traits that stem from that which distinguishes a man-human from a woman-human. (I've said this before, despite the fact that certain people claim no attempt at definition was given)

This is a perfectly fine objective basis for deciding whether anything is masculine or feminine.

How many male humans are actually tall AND physically strong AND morally...

That question is invalid. The question is how and whether any given attribute is related to the male gender. Biologically, men are stronger than women, so the strength question is answered. They also stink more.

The carburetor question is a bit deeper. To know why automotive mechanics is associated with men, you have to get the history of when the automobile was invented, and why men worked on them. Before the invention of reliable birth control, women didn't for the most part pursue labor skill acquisition for career or otherwise. This was for a very good reason, which was in fact rooted in the biological nature of their gender (that they could become pregnant, thus making careers impractical). Secondly, it is a physically demanding trade, for which the lesser physical strength of women is not so well suited. Also, the grease and filth of the job interferes with the feminine virtue of beauty. Of course, it was also rooted in the general and irrational bias against women.

Now today you have a big shift because birth control is reliable, and also old biases are gone. But nevertheless, it is a physical-labor intense job and it is a dirty one, both of which are non-feminine. Not to mention that the man-made fact of what society once was may be man-made, but it is still a fact, and can't be ignored outright. Just like the definition of the word "is."

(notice, you have valid inferences from biology, outdated but once valid cultural bases, and outdated and invalid cultural bases... covering all three categories that were mentioned earlier in this thread)

So, yes, it takes a little work, but you can know what carburetors have to do with biological maleness. You can't know it, however, if you insist on remaining concrete bound.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Inspector

[blackdiamond]

I will quickly summarise my arguments against a woman presidency in this small entry (below); i will later correct any innacurate sentences, but it summarises my reasoning quite concisely.

i think that the issue of masculinity and femininity will always be confusing for as long as we continue thinking that these are high-level concepts instead of being just perceptual concepts, really. You can SEE masculinity in ACTION just as you can see femininity in action; they are simple behavioral traits that come from something in the PHYSICAL nature of man.

You are a woman; imagine being married to a man who screams like hell at the sight of a small spider crawling on his foot or hides behind your back when a dog comes barking at the two of you; or screams uncontrollably at the sight of a suddenly-discovered dead body. It can be irritating sometimes when a woman screams at a small thing, but i don't know what i would think if i ever saw a man react like that. I do not believe that women learnt to react like that by cultural training or that men just learnt to be "stronger" in such cases due to culture; it is certainly something that is connected to our biological makeup.

Now, one might ask if screaming at the sight of a spider is a good, feminine thing. It is not necessarily good, but it is consistent with the nature of weakness and therefore not contradictory with that weaker nature. but a woman should not necessarily aim to do this if she has learnt to be stronger in such situations.

Weakness is not a virtue, not even in a woman. A woman can learn to be almost as strong (psychologically) as men in certain situations, but she can not achieve this completely (in everything and perhaps even in those few things in which she does learn to be strong). Metaphysically, it is impossible for a woman to reach the point where she is completely as strong as a man, which is why she will always "look up" to a man - the being who is apparently equipped with superior strength from birth - the "hero"; she naturally will worship this being that has this great ability that she can not have.

Now. The presidency requires a lot of psychological (or 'mental') strength. This office should be occupied by someone that everyone can look up to for strength and courage, especially in difficult times. I just don't see how a realistic woman can want to carry that kind of responsibility on her shoulders.

This is the being who, when some sad news comes (to herself and her husband), her immediate reaction is to want to be held in her husband's arms - to (symbolically and actually) receive strength and courage from him in the face of such traumatic news. Would it make sense for the same woman to also desire a job that requires her to be the shoulder that everyone leans on (in a manner of speaking) in times of danger and crisis? And to be the nation's symbol of the highest strength and courage - both to her own people and the other nations? I would hope not.

Can someone show me why this reasoning is rationalistic or simply flawed?

[Inspector]

The question is how and whether any given attribute is related to the male gender. Biologically, men are stronger than women, so the strength question is answered. They also stink more.

Of course, for the concrete bound, there are no "men," and I will have to show you this "men" or it doesn't exist. Abstractions, apparently, don't exist.

[mrocktor]

This is a perfectly fine objective basis for deciding whether anything is masculine or feminine.

The first part is merely the basis for deciding whether anything is "male" or "female". The second part is a proper definition - you just use it wrong.

The traits that distinguish a man-human from a woman-human are sexual organs. "Boys have penis, girls have vagina".

The second definition is even easier to apply. What traits stem from those characteristics that sepparate men from women? Having a penis. Having a scrotum. The sepparating characteristics themselves. What behaviors stem from those traits? None. People choose their behavior.

The rest of your castle of cards is built on thin air. Rationalize as much as you want - there is nothing, nothing inherently "male" about automobile mechanics.

Metaphysically, it is impossible for a woman to reach the point where she is completely as strong as a man

That is not even wrong. You can't draw a line from "rational being with ovaries" and "rational being with testicles" to this absurd claim, its just arbitrary.

Oh, and it is also despicable.

Of course, for the concrete bound, there are no "men," and I will have to show you this "men" or it doesn't exist. Abstractions, apparently, don't exist.

Abstractions exist, they just can't lift weights.

[aequalsa]

Your concept is not a proper concept. You can't sort out existents into "masculine" and "non-masculine" except on a completely subjective basis. Not so with "man", "woman", "hermaphrodite". Those are proper concepts.

I think you may be right. I ran into a similiar problem when I realized that there was a color between green and blue. I thought I solved it when I called it blue-green, but that didn't help because there is another color between blue and blue green...blue-blue-green....and this just keeps happening. So I agree masculinity, feminity and color no longer exist. I am getting concerned now that night and day do not exist either since day is sunny and nught is dark, but sometimes it is a little sunny or a little dark. I very soon shall run out of concepts.

[aequalsa]

The traits that distinguish a man-human from a woman-human are sexual organs. "Boys have penis, girls have vagina".

Did you forget, not read, or evade all of the biological differences between men and women's brains that I have mentioned in previous posts?

The second definition is even easier to apply. What traits stem from those characteristics that sepparate men from women? Having a penis. Having a scrotum. The sepparating characteristics themselves. What behaviors stem from those traits? None. People choose their behavior.

Right, because I choose to have 75% of the corpus callum that a woman has which causes me to choose to have less interactivity between the left and right hemispheres of my brain. If only I tried harder I could will myself to increase the size of my corpus callum. I'll work on that.

The rest of your castle of cards is built on thin air. Rationalize as much as you want - there is nothing, nothing inherently "male" about automobile mechanics.

Except for that small detail that I explained earlier, which you forgot,did not read, or evaded, that men have 20X's the testosterone that women have which causes an increase in mechanical-spatial reasoning. This difference in spatial reasoning ability, to the chagrin of all steadystate feminists like yourself consistently has boys out perform girls on tests devoted to it.

That is not even wrong. You can't draw a line from "rational being with ovaries" and "rational being with testicles" to this absurd claim, its just arbitrary.

Arbitrary in the sense thast it is derived from inductive scientific fact showing a causal relation between biology and decision making?

Oh, and it is also despicable.

Abstractions exist, they just can't lift weights.

What I find even more dispicable is your decision to ignore all of the scientific facts I have repaetedly presented to you in your attempt to prove a case which is unsubstaiable.

I think you may be right. I ran into a similiar problem when I realized that there was a color between green and blue. I thought I solved it when I called it blue-green, but that didn't help because there is another color between blue and blue green...blue-blue-green....and this just keeps happening. So I agree masculinity, feminity and color no longer exist. I am getting concerned now that night and day do not exist either since day is sunny and nught is dark, but sometimes it is a little sunny or a little dark. I very soon shall run out of concepts.

I have dishes that turn upward at the edges a little more then usual...I can't decide if I should call them bowls or dishes. Shoot...no more bowls or dishes in my vocabulary. This is quickly becoming inconvenient. I wonder if my approach is wrong?

[mrocktor]

I am getting concerned now that night and day do not exist either since day is sunny and nught is dark, but sometimes it is a little sunny or a little dark. I very soon shall run out of concepts.

During the day, the sun is above the horizon. During the night, it is below. When the sun crosses the horizon coming up, you have dawn, when it is going down, it is dusk. There is no "grayness" about proper concepts. About color, I had an interesting discussion with David Odden about that once. But color is perceptually evident, it is not a good example for this discussion.

Did you forget, not read, or evade all of the biological differences between men and women's brains that I have mentioned in previous posts?

Did you explain how all these differences overwrite volition making behavior sexually determined? I don't give a rat's ass about all your special science untill you address the philosophical issue. Starting with your broken understanding of Epistemology.

I have dishes that turn upward at the edges a little more then usual...I can't decide if I should call them bowls or dishes. Shoot...no more bowls or dishes in my vocabulary. This is quickly becoming inconvenient. I wonder if my approach is wrong?

Your approach is wrong. You need better definitions.

EDIT: I have to clarify this, since it is bound to be misinterpreted (my fault for being ironic):

"Boys have penis, girls have vagina".

This is intended to mean that physical differences between men and women are visible and self evident. They are the traits that distinguish men and women, and are the necessary results of gender (not a matter of degree, certainly not a matter of choice).

Edited February 12, 2007 by mrocktor

[aequalsa]

During the day, the sun is above the horizon. During the night, it is below. When the sun crosses the horizon coming up, you have dawn, when it is going down, it is dusk. There is no "grayness" about proper concepts. About color, I had an interesting discussion with David Odden about that once. But color is perceptually evident, it is not a good example for this discussion.

Actually it is perfect because it matches the spectral nature of masculinity and feminity which occurs because of the varied effects of freewill.

Did you explain how all these differences overwrite volition making behavior sexually determined?

Actually, no. What I did explain was that freewill is not the floating abstraction you treat it as. Which I don't intend to repeat. Try reading my posts if you are actually interested, but don't sit her and pretend I didn't offer explanation. Anyone reading this can go back and see clearly that I did.

I don't give a rat's ass about all your special science untill you address the philosophical issue.

Right, don't bother you with the facts.... Too inconvenient? I think we're done.

[mrocktor]

Actually it is perfect because it matches the spectral nature of masculinity and feminity which occurs because of the varied effects of freewill.

I see your point. However where "green" and "blue" are non-controversial and perceptually available, "masculine" and "feminine" are not. They are abstractions, and to this point vaguely defined abstractions. The attempt to use "strength" as a differentiator quickly broke down.

Actually, no. What I did explain was that freewill is not the floating abstraction you treat it as.

Free will is not a floating abstraction - it is a perceptually self-evident fact. It is not an abstraction at all. And it means that we make choices - i.e. we choose A or B for ourselves, absolutely uncompelled. Any part of reality may be a factor to any specific choice - but it is still a choice, and when the choice is made it is the will of the individual that is responsible, the choice is not determined by any of the factors he may or may not have weighed in the decision.

Right, don't bother you with the facts.... Too inconvenient? I think we're done.

Do you understand that science is dependent on philosophy and why?

Edited February 12, 2007 by mrocktor