Equality and STEM

[BotanyBoy]

You poor tortured soul. All that pent up hypocrisy and no one to hear your cries.

What hypocrisy??

 

[KimGordon67]

Yea, the part where you back up your bullshit and trash biology/psychology as sciences in their near entirety.

It's ok, NOBODY is holding their breaths.



Probably a wide range, it's only the hard left SJW's/feminist and fundi-religious loons on the right that pretend everything is a social construction and biology/psychology is bullshit.

The rest of us in between the two crazy camps generally accept that testosterone, estrogen and the human brain are real and have a direct link to human perception/behaviors. Because science > feelz.

But I'm sure a mind reading know it all like yourself just KNOWS their politics am I right?

Another far left trait.....mind reading.

Goodoh, because your brain is obviously needing as much oxygen as it can get.

I don't know why you can't grasp the fact that I accept biology has a part to play in a lot of things, in spite of my repeated statements that I accept that biology has a part to play in a lot of things. I just don't happen to give it the omnipower status that you do. But of course, you obviously know my position on biology better than I do, and can find countless instances where I've said 'biology doesn't exist' or whatever you think I believe.

I have never once discredited 'science' - as I'm sure I've also stated more than once, I adamantly believe in science, and frequently argue against science-deniers. (I'll certainly argue against specific scientific findings if I think they're specious, but because I think they're bad science, not because they're science per se.) But of course, you obviously know my position science better than I do, based on the countless instances of me saying 'science is patriarchal and racist'.

As long as you continue to misattribute these positions to me, why the actual fuck would I bother to engage in any debate with you. You just blatantly lie to support whatever you want to think about the other person's position, and then use that lie to discredit their argument. You present zero evidence for your argument beyond memes and pictures. You don't engage with the actual evidence other people present to support their position, nor engage with their actual argument. I'm sort of flummoxed that you can be such a fan of science when that's your MO for debating, because it's so far from an actual scientific approach that it's laughable.

This would be your cue to say 'BUT YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT WAH WAH WAH'. And you're right, in this thread I don't think I have presented an argument, just critiqued Peterson's poorly founded position on the gender wage gap (but apparently that's invalid because I didn't immediately recognise his name, in spite of his apparently towering standing as a public intellectual ... or whatever). But as I've said countless times, I'm not debating shit like this with you any more because you can't actually stay on topic, support your statements, read evidence, or engage with what the other person is saying.
You haven't given me one single reason to think otherwise ... you just keep going 'wah wah wah'. Even Que managed to actually present some points in a vaugely intelligent way, and then engage with my actual response to those points. Your response: "That's not a consequence of feminism, that's just not dating an abusive stain. You continue to associate being a piece of shit with masculinity.....your overt bigotry is flying strong." ... yet again demonstrating that you think 'hegemonic masculinity' and 'masculinity' are the same thing, while completely ignoring an actually quite interesting discussion about the nature of masculinity in hetero relationships. I could recommend some authors, but of course you wouldn't look at their work because it's not easy to turn into a meme.

Basically you can't bear to admit that I might be right about even one tiny little thing (e.g. that 'hegemonic masculinity' =/= all masculinity or all men), so you just keep misattributing statements and positions to me as though repeating the crap will make it some truer.

And to the people saying 'yet here you are continuing to argue with him' - this takes about ten minutes, and only happens because I get a bit pissed with Bot lies about things I've said. Engaging in an actual evidence-based debate about the issue of, for example, the gender pay gap would be quite a time-consuming activity, because constructing a solid argument actually does take time. I literally have better things to do, given that it's utterly clear that no one would engage with more than about 1% of that argument after I'd gone to all that trouble.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm sorry that your whole existence is dependent upon just arguing. Doesn't matter with who or what about.

You should start a fetish thread about this.

Do you think that fetish is linked to the 'thread-stalking-so-you-can-make-snide-petty-comments fetish' in the DSM, or are they completely unrelated paraphilias?

 

[toeskr]

Goodoh, because your brain is obviously needing as much oxygen as it can get.

I don't know why you can't grasp the fact that I accept biology has a part to play in a lot of things, in spite of my repeated statements that I accept that biology has a part to play in a lot of things. I just don't happen to give it the omnipower status that you do. But of course, you obviously know my position on biology better than I do, and can find countless instances where I've said 'biology doesn't exist' or whatever you think I believe.

I have never once discredited 'science' - as I'm sure I've also stated more than once, I adamantly believe in science, and frequently argue against science-deniers. (I'll certainly argue against specific scientific findings if I think they're specious, but because I think they're bad science, not because they're science per se.) But of course, you obviously know my position science better than I do, based on the countless instances of me saying 'science is patriarchal and racist'.

As long as you continue to misattribute these positions to me, why the actual fuck would I bother to engage in any debate with you. You just blatantly lie to support whatever you want to think about the other person's position, and then use that lie to discredit their argument. You present zero evidence for your argument beyond memes and pictures. You don't engage with the actual evidence other people present to support their position, nor engage with their actual argument. I'm sort of flummoxed that you can be such a fan of science when that's your MO for debating, because it's so far from an actual scientific approach that it's laughable.

This would be your cue to say 'BUT YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT WAH WAH WAH'. And you're right, in this thread I don't think I have presented an argument, just critiqued Peterson's poorly founded position on the gender wage gap (but apparently that's invalid because I didn't immediately recognise his name, in spite of his apparently towering standing as a public intellectual ... or whatever). But as I've said countless times, I'm not debating shit like this with you any more because you can't actually stay on topic, support your statements, read evidence, or engage with what the other person is saying.
You haven't given me one single reason to think otherwise ... you just keep going 'wah wah wah'. Even Que managed to actually present some points in a vaugely intelligent way, and then engage with my actual response to those points. Your response: "That's not a consequence of feminism, that's just not dating an abusive stain. You continue to associate being a piece of shit with masculinity.....your overt bigotry is flying strong." ... yet again demonstrating that you think 'hegemonic masculinity' and 'masculinity' are the same thing, while completely ignoring an actually quite interesting discussion about the nature of masculinity in hetero relationships. I could recommend some authors, but of course you wouldn't look at their work because it's not easy to turn into a meme.

Basically you can't bear to admit that I might be right about even one tiny little thing (e.g. that 'hegemonic masculinity' =/= all masculinity or all men), so you just keep misattributing statements and positions to me as though repeating the crap will make it some truer.

And to the people saying 'yet here you are continuing to argue with him' - this takes about ten minutes, and only happens because I get a bit pissed with Bot lies about things I've said. Engaging in an actual evidence-based debate about the issue of, for example, the gender pay gap would be quite a time-consuming activity, because constructing a solid argument actually does take time. I literally have better things to do, given that it's utterly clear that no one would engage with more than about 1% of that argument after I'd gone to all that trouble.

Damn candi2.

Whew!

 

[toeskr]

Do you think that fetish is linked to the 'thread-stalking-so-you-can-make-snide-petty-comments fetish' in the DSM, or are they completely unrelated paraphilias?

And no.

Thank you for the brief response.

Snide, lol.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't know why you can't grasp the fact that I accept biology has a part to play in a lot of things,

Because you keep saying hardcore biology denying social constructionist stuff like this.

'Women are more agreeable than men.' - we REALLY think that's somehow biological and not something that's PART OF GENDER

in spite of my repeated statements that I accept that biology has a part to play in a lot of things.

Then why do you seem to think agreeableness and security seeking behaviors of women and aggressive/dominating higher risk taking of men is a social construct ?

You consider these behaviors such as women being more agreeable and men being more assertive and risk taking part of gender which you consider a social construct do you not?

I just don't happen to give it the omnipower status that you do.

I don't give it omnipower status. I just don't ignore it to keep my faith in an ideology that says behavior is separated from biology.

Basically you can't bear to admit that I might be right about even one tiny little thing (e.g. that 'hegemonic masculinity' =/= all masculinity or all men), so you just keep misattributing statements and positions to me as though repeating the crap will make it some truer.

Because the only way you are right is if you're using another "TOP SECRET" definition of the word hegemony that's nothing like what any of the reference materials say the word means.

Masculinity is inherently hegemonic. That truth is pretty fuckin' obvious.

hegemony noun
he·​ge·​mo·​ny | \ hi-ˈje-mə-nē , -ˈge-; ˈhe-jə-ˌmō-nē \
Definition of hegemony
1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION
battled for hegemony in Asia
2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would also like to tear your little cheese burger example a new one.


If you don't define "toxic masculinity" the term is totally meaningless and an obvious shield for your negative views of masculinity.

But I'm guessing that one is "TOP SECRET" too innit?

https://scontent.fakl2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/50244548_2070542516395946_5612949698076737536_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeGFPCf7XttuoF5_RW9QMpv6sc6TkpNqUO_St7VmyWGu5YTMobjTr3B_PQWSADFXlaBlhG1xYKX0TfN1MqzS2kXN477Wrbeo9oR6ClhZgFSuYg&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl2-1.fna&oh=5b0e664c5a514bd93a7d4888342d42ff&oe=5CC5164F

 

[KimGordon67]

Because you keep saying hardcore biology denying social constructionist stuff like this.






Then why do you seem to think agreeableness and security seeking behaviors of women and aggressive/dominating higher risk taking of men is a social construct ?

You consider these behaviors such as women being more agreeable and men being more assertive and risk taking part of gender which you consider a social construct do you not?



I don't give it omnipower status. I just don't ignore it to keep my faith in an ideology that says behavior is separated from biology.




Because the only way you are right is if you're using another "TOP SECRET" definition of the word hegemony that's nothing like what any of the reference materials say the word means.

Masculinity is inherently hegemonic. That truth is pretty fuckin' obvious.



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony

Oh, of course, a DICTIONARY definition.

Read some fucking theory. Just once. Give it a go. I know one sentence explanations of things and memes are easy, but you MIGHT just learn something. Maybe.

And this: ''Women are more agreeable than men.' - we REALLY think that's somehow biological and not something that's PART OF GENDER" isn't 'denying biology' - it's just suggesting that 'agreeableness' is something women (as a group) get socialised into from the moment they're born. I don't think 'agreeableness' necessarily had a biological base, or if it does, it's miniscule compared the impact of socialisation.

I'm off the GB now - you ridiculous approach to debate, and Que getting personal, finally just wore me down. So well done the two of you ... you win.

https://media.makeameme.org/created/bye-bye-w53pqx.jpg

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, of course, a DICTIONARY definition.

I knew you were operating on a "TOP SECRET" definition.

And this: ''Women are more agreeable than men.' - we REALLY think that's somehow biological and not something that's PART OF GENDER" isn't 'denying biology' - it's just suggesting that 'agreeableness' is something women (as a group) get socialised into from the moment they're born. I don't think 'agreeableness' necessarily had a biological base, or if it does, it's miniscule compared the impact of socialisation.

Says she's not denying biology, IMMEDIATELY DENIES BIOLOGY.

It's called testosterone, there is HUGE piles of scientific research on it you've clearly either rejected for ideological reasons or never read in the first place.

The more of it pretty much anything more evolved than a Lobster gets more disagreeable the more of it they have.

When you get really crazy with it, they call it "roid rage" maybe you've heard of it?

https://fitnessvolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Dorian-Yates-Rules-696x428.jpg

Yea....that's real.

The less testosterone? The less domineering, aggressive, confrontational and less likely to take risks you get....less masculine behavior, less masculine bone structure, less masculine brainwave pasterns and much more.

Testosterone/estrogen levels don't just make you grow hair in funny places, it's much deeper than that and it includes behavior trends.

You're denying the well documented effects of testosterone on human behavior....aka biology.

you win.

Because SCIENCE!!!! Facts don't care about your ideology.

Testosterone is real and it makes damn near every living critter on the planet more combative and less agreeable.

 

[Hal9000_]

One interesting observation:

Many women would rather work with men than other women.

The generalization being that men are more straightforward. Less catty and conniving. And more able to accept abject unfairness as "just another day".

Work mules. Not entitled princesses.

 

[toeskr]

I'm off the GB now - you ridiculous approach to debate, and Que getting personal, finally just wore me down. So well done the two of you ... you win.


Yay!

No more windbag, drawn out arguments just for the sake of arguing.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yay!

No more windbag, drawn out arguments just for the sake of arguing.

She doesn't even argue she just assumes she's right and then pretends to be above explaining anything or backing it up in any way.

Ignores well documented scientific facts and reputable reference materials in order to persist in her ideology.

She's like a Jesus freak who takes the Bible LITERALLY and can't be told any different....not a damn bit different.

 

[about_average]

I’d like to know what you think the purpose of citation is in academic work other than to avoid plagiarism, give reference for further reading and to acknowledge relevant work by the quoted author?

Keep digging

 

[about_average]

Liberals have a very simplistic view of the world in general.

So you're a liberal?

Because this is certainly simplistic.

They look through the lens of sexism and blame all male/female imbalances for it