International Women's Day

[BIL]

I think Michael Jackson said it best: if you want to make a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change.

The problem is he never stopped changing, and changing, and changing...

We never got to see his true final form

I like to believe we kind of did, via Bo Selecta.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

^No sorry, it was that Moonwalker transformer thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twjUr4aB2zo

Jesus Christ.

[replayme]

This video isn't pretty. But it highlights the grotesque actions which women will be able to get away with if "feminism" is taken to its logical conclusion, whereby women are taught to be street rats that can shout their mouth off and have little respect. With zero consequence.

http://youtu.be/kbRYTLzkd04

no actually what that video highlights is that spitting a bus driver in the face might get you punched.

if you think feminism is the ideology that teaches that one can spit bus drivers in the face without getting punched, then you might wanna read up a little.

And as for the notion of love, the following video illustrates how "love" is a commoditized transaction that isn't unconditional.

http://youtu.be/ouI-VeKTXcg

ok, i lolled ( ^o^)

so i guess you're a troll, but let me get serious for a moment anyway.

i make a living being a scientist. i'm as good at what i do as my male peers. i'm financially self-sufficient. i don't need to use myself as bait to procure a man to care for me. this means that i can afford to pick my partner just because i love him/her. this is a luxury women in the past didn't have, and many still don't have. that i have this luxury now is (at least in part) thanks to what i'll call Good Old Practical Feminism (not be confused with Crazy Newfangled Tumblr Feminism). the Good Old Practical Feminism that says that hey, it's ok for her to be a scientist, it's ok for her to be independent. the "luxury" of love is attained via this equality of opportunity. and that pays off both ways, cause my partner ends up getting Actually Loved. *dramatic longing sigh*

(that said, i don't call myself a feminist. too much batshit angry nonsense under that umbrella...)
(oh and that self-obsessed pseudo-academic science-is-a-social-construct-of-the-patriarchy branch can go die in a fire)

Actually, the notion that women shouldn't be hit is spun out from radical feminism which argues that men are the problem and that women are (unfairly) beaten in domestic situations. In short, women are portrayed as the victims in a male dominated society, and that males are the problem.

The video which I pointed out however clearly demonstrates that not only did a woman initiate a physical confrontation, but that it was her unyielding ability to hide behind the shield of "feminism" which
legitimised her attitude. Notice also when (some of the) witnesses start shouting out "but she's a woman?!?!", as if her actions are completely excusable because of her gender.

Men are not always the problem. Women are (and should be) responsible for their own actions. And modern day feminism is unable (and unwilling) to address this.

Feminists love talking about the level of violence that is incurred by females, but they can't seem to understand that females are just as callously violent when they desire.

I think you're the one who needs to read up on feminism. Also, you mention that you're a "scientist", but fail to elaborate as to the type. I can only assume that you're no social scientist, as otherwise your department (and colleagues) is a real joke.

I will however give you kudos for establishing yourself in a way that shows off your hardwork and tenacity. But I don't believe that contemporary western women aren't allowed the same opportunities. I did mention the word "reductivist" after all, in that many CHOOSE to be dumb little housewives when it suits them. Thus the double standards.

I think the real "luxury" stems from the fact that you can choose as to whether you want to carve out a career, or play the dumb little housewife (when it suits you). In short, a woman who can ask for her cake and eat it too.

Men have no such options.

[Mischief Maker]

Actually, the notion that women shouldn't be hit is spun out from radical feminism which argues that men are the problem and that women are (unfairly) beaten in domestic situations. In short, women are portrayed as the victims in a male dominated society, and that males are the problem.

The video which I pointed out however clearly demonstrates that not only did a woman initiate a physical confrontation, but that it was her unyielding ability to hide behind the shield of "feminism" which
legitimised her attitude. Notice also when (some of the) witnesses start shouting out "but she's a woman?!?!", as if her actions are completely excusable because of her gender.

Here's where I'm throwing the power/responsibility dynamic back in your face. She's a woman. Unless you're fucking Stephen Hawkings, an unarmed woman is not a physical threat to you. We men are stronger than women and we need to use that power responsibly.

You don't need to punch a woman! 90% of the time if a woman is threatening to fuck you up you can just go "psh!" and walk away. She's a girl!

If you're not in a position where you can walk away and need to physically remove her from your space, you hold your palm toward her with the fingers spread WIDE. Then you press the fingertips of your one hand against the outside of her face and shove. It's called a "mush." Her angry girl face is no physical match for your man fingertips. The point has been made. Power wielded responsibly.

If she's REALLY scrappy, here's how you fight a violent woman:

1. The first flailing punch/slap she throws, catch her arm and hold it. Your man arm completely neutralizes her girl arm.
2. She throws another punch/slap with her other arm, catch and neutralize it with your other arm.
3. Immediately swivel your hips so as to block her inevitable kick for your groin.
4. In one clean movement, rotate your body so she shifts to the side a little more than a foot and say "Hey!" Like you're a theme park ride. The man-a-whirl. Strap yourself in ladies, then there's nothing you can do to prevent him from moving your entire body one foot!

Yeah, I'd say punching a woman is a cowardly act. Oh no! A girl is coming after me, I have to use maximum force to protect myself from this dangerous situation! Get outta here!

And replayme, if you're routinely getting your ass beat by women who know how to fight, move the fuck out of Detroit. That $1 house is NOT WORTH IT!

[Skykid]

Also, that driver was provoked. She spat and laid a hand on him. Which is assault however you'd like to look at it.

Stop acting the saint.

Who's acting the saint?

I said the punch was uncalled for. I didn't say she wasn't an irritating idiot who deserved some kind of reprimanding, I just said a full uppercut to the jaw by a bulky bus driver was slightly beyond necessary bounds.

As Mischief Maker says above, men don't need to go toe to toe sparring with women. Of course put out an extreme example, like she's wielding a deadly weapon with intent to use, and yes, uppercut the fuck out of her until incapacitated and your life is no longer in danger.

The bus driver was pissed and did the wrong thing.

As for your hypothetical scenario, if a woman butchered my family, I'd likely attempt to kill her maliciously in a fit of sadness and rage - but you've pushed into fantasy realms of "what if" here, where anything goes.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Actually, the notion that women shouldn't be hit is spun out from radical feminism which argues that men are the problem and that women are (unfairly) beaten in domestic situations. In short, women are portrayed as the victims in a male dominated society, and that males are the problem.

The video which I pointed out however clearly demonstrates that not only did a woman initiate a physical confrontation, but that it was her unyielding ability to hide behind the shield of "feminism" which
legitimised her attitude. Notice also when (some of the) witnesses start shouting out "but she's a woman?!?!", as if her actions are completely excusable because of her gender.

Here's where I'm throwing the power/responsibility dynamic back in your face. She's a woman. Unless you're fucking Stephen Hawkings, an unarmed woman is not a physical threat to you. We men are stronger than women and we need to use that power responsibly.

You don't need to punch a woman! 90% of the time if a woman is threatening to fuck you up you can just go "psh!" and walk away. She's a girl!

If you're not in a position where you can walk away and need to physically remove her from your space, you hold your palm toward her with the fingers spread WIDE. Then you press the fingertips of your one hand against the outside of her face and shove. It's called a "mush." Her angry girl face is no physical match for your man fingertips. The point has been made. Power wielded responsibly.

If she's REALLY scrappy, here's how you fight a violent woman:

1. The first flailing punch/slap she throws, catch her arm and hold it. Your man arm completely neutralizes her girl arm.
2. She throws another punch/slap with her other arm, catch and neutralize it with your other arm.
3. Immediately swivel your hips so as to block her inevitable kick for your groin.
4. In one clean movement, rotate your body so she shifts to the side a little more than a foot and say "Hey!" Like you're a theme park ride. The man-a-whirl. Strap yourself in ladies, then there's nothing you can do to prevent him from moving your entire body one foot!

Yeah, I'd say punching a woman is a cowardly act. Oh no! A girl is coming after me, I have to use maximum force to protect myself from this dangerous situation! Get outta here!

And replayme, if you're routinely getting your ass beat by women who know how to fight, move the fuck out of Detroit. That $1 house is NOT WORTH IT!

Isn't it great that we're sat inside on a Friday night, re-learning lessons we were taught in playschool. The above doesn't just apply to girls, but also to little brothers. There's a smarter way to deal with those smaller than you. Only a simpleton thinks with his fists.

I do kinda respect the fact that some people have a 'red mist' that could make a guy instinctively lash out like that (the John Prescott factor). I've actually had a couple of girls spit on me in highschool. I didn't uppercut them because I'm not a dick, However, I guess some people can be pushed over the edge. That's the lesson - dont mess with other people, you never know what youre gonna get - but I agree with Spadgy that it wasn't an acceptable reaction.

Anyway, If we really want to flip the power/responsibility dynamic - then Replaysin should tell us why he has such a bug up his butt over women. What did they do to you? You expect the priviledge of being able to express an opinion but don't have the balls to spill your guts as to why. Even radical feminism is barely threatening. Man up.

Also waiting for an explanation as to why Craig Charles still has a career.

[glitch]

Actually, the notion that women shouldn't be hit is spun out from radical feminism which argues that men are the problem and that women are (unfairly) beaten in domestic situations. In short, women are portrayed as the victims in a male dominated society, and that males are the problem.

i'm pretty sure the notion that it's ungentlemanly to hit women far predates feminism.
also i think you and i can agree that domestic violence is terrible regardless of the gender of the victim. that opinion is 100% compatible with reasonable forms of feminism. i'm not defending radical feminism (hell no), and i don't think anyone else itt is either.

The video which I pointed out however clearly demonstrates that not only did a woman initiate a physical confrontation, but that it was her unyielding ability to hide behind the shield of "feminism" which legitimised her attitude.

the video clearly demonstrates that a woman initiated a physical confrontation, and that it didn't end well for her.
nothing i see in that video "legitimizes" her attitude, feminism doesn't even enter the equation. unless you wanna argue that she would not have acted that way if she would have routinely had the shit beaten out of her at home, but i hope you don't wanna go there.

Men are not always the problem.

100% with you on that.

Women are (and should be) responsible for their own actions. And modern day feminism is unable (and unwilling) to address this.

feminism is working on the equality thing. with that comes equality of responsibility. i don't see your point, so can you make it more specific? name me a responsibility that a self-sufficient career woman won't take, that a self-sufficient career man does.

I think you're the one who needs to read up on feminism. Also, you mention that you're a "scientist", but fail to elaborate as to the type. I can only assume that you're no social scientist, as otherwise your department (and colleagues) is a real joke.

a "scientist"? thanks for the scare quotes, big boy.
your baseless assumption that i am not a social scientist happens to be correct.
and your assertion that the social sciences are a joke is a gross generalization, but i can wholeheartedly agree there's a lot of dumb shit going on within parts of the social sciences.

I will however give you kudos for establishing yourself in a way that shows off your hardwork and tenacity. But I don't believe that contemporary western women aren't allowed the same opportunities.

thanks!
wouldn't you agree it's a good development that we are allowed much the same opportunities these days?
that development didn't just come falling from the sky you know. and it's not quite finished yet. as you yourself illustrate:

I did mention the word "reductivist" after all, in that many CHOOSE to be dumb little housewives when it suits them. Thus the double standards.

I think the real "luxury" stems from the fact that you can choose as to whether you want to carve out a career, or play the dumb little housewife (when it suits you). In short, a woman who can ask for her cake and eat it too.

Men have no such options.

you mind double standards? gosh, so do i! let's aim for equality!
if we had plenty of career women making manly amounts of money, then more men could choose to be dumb little housemen! not that i think that equal opportunity would lead to a 50/50 split here. i think even without any social pressure or conditioning, the average man is probably still more drawn towards prestige and career-making than the average woman is, and vice-versa for housewife/houseman duty. but i think society should not force those roles on people because of their gender. think we can agree on that?

[BIL]

^No sorry, it was that Moonwalker transformer thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twjUr4aB2zo

Jesus Christ.

God damn, that's terrifying. I remember it being so fun! He looks like MechaJamesBrown at one point.

I think that's more like the manifestation of MJ's childhood revenge fantasy via the magic of film than the sublimation of his plastic-infused existence, though. :[

"SHADDUP" *smack* "BAAAHAHAHA - OH GOD MIKEY PUT THE GUN DOWN SON PLZ"

[replayme]

Actually, the notion that women shouldn't be hit is spun out from radical feminism which argues that men are the problem and that women are (unfairly) beaten in domestic situations. In short, women are portrayed as the victims in a male dominated society, and that males are the problem.

The video which I pointed out however clearly demonstrates that not only did a woman initiate a physical confrontation, but that it was her unyielding ability to hide behind the shield of "feminism" which
legitimised her attitude. Notice also when (some of the) witnesses start shouting out "but she's a woman?!?!", as if her actions are completely excusable because of her gender.

Here's where I'm throwing the power/responsibility dynamic back in your face. She's a woman. Unless you're fucking Stephen Hawkings, an unarmed woman is not a physical threat to you. We men are stronger than women and we need to use that power responsibly.

You don't need to punch a woman! 90% of the time if a woman is threatening to fuck you up you can just go "psh!" and walk away. She's a girl!

If you're not in a position where you can walk away and need to physically remove her from your space, you hold your palm toward her with the fingers spread WIDE. Then you press the fingertips of your one hand against the outside of her face and shove. It's called a "mush." Her angry girl face is no physical match for your man fingertips. The point has been made. Power wielded responsibly.

If she's REALLY scrappy, here's how you fight a violent woman:

1. The first flailing punch/slap she throws, catch her arm and hold it. Your man arm completely neutralizes her girl arm.
2. She throws another punch/slap with her other arm, catch and neutralize it with your other arm.
3. Immediately swivel your hips so as to block her inevitable kick for your groin.
4. In one clean movement, rotate your body so she shifts to the side a little more than a foot and say "Hey!" Like you're a theme park ride. The man-a-whirl. Strap yourself in ladies, then there's nothing you can do to prevent him from moving your entire body one foot!

Yeah, I'd say punching a woman is a cowardly act. Oh no! A girl is coming after me, I have to use maximum force to protect myself from this dangerous situation! Get outta here!

And replayme, if you're routinely getting your ass beat by women who know how to fight, move the fuck out of Detroit. That $1 house is NOT WORTH IT!

If power implies authority... Doesn't change the fact that some women have zero respect for authority.

And like I said previously, if I attacked Mike Tyson, I fully expect to get the shit kicked out of me... Whether he goes about asserting his physical superiority is a moot point. The point is that I was stupid, and that I would still have deserved it.

[replayme]

Also, that driver was provoked. She spat and laid a hand on him. Which is assault however you'd like to look at it.

Stop acting the saint.

Who's acting the saint?

I said the punch was uncalled for. I didn't say she wasn't an irritating idiot who deserved some kind of reprimanding, I just said a full uppercut to the jaw by a bulky bus driver was slightly beyond necessary bounds.

As Mischief Maker says above, men don't need to go toe to toe sparring with women. Of course put out an extreme example, like she's wielding a deadly weapon with intent to use, and yes, uppercut the fuck out of her until incapacitated and your life is no longer in danger.

The bus driver was pissed and did the wrong thing.

As for your hypothetical scenario, if a woman butchered my family, I'd likely attempt to kill her maliciously in a fit of sadness and rage - but you've pushed into fantasy realms of "what if" here, where anything goes.

You said it yourself:

"Call me old-fashioned, but a man striking a woman - no matter how much of a pain in the ass - is really not cool. And I realise perversely this is actually counter-feminist, since it's implying that women are a weaker sex. Fuck all that: in the real world women going toe-to-toe fist fighting with men is utterly absurd, no much how equality they scream for."

Where do you draw the line? And I called you out on it...

[replayme]

I do kinda respect the fact that some people have a 'red mist' that could make a guy instinctively lash out like that (the John Prescott factor). I've actually had a couple of girls spit on me in highschool. I didn't uppercut them because I'm not a dick, However, I guess some people can be pushed over the edge. That's the lesson - dont mess with other people, you never know what youre gonna get - but I agree with Spadgy that it wasn't an acceptable reaction.

You don't know the bus driver's circumstances. Or how much abuse he had to take for the previous six months. From the same woman. Maybe that was the 237563836383635th woman who had spat on him, and he just thought "Fcuk it. I've had enough"!

You ever seen Falling Down? Some people are just pressure cookers waiting to go off.

Whilst sitting on their moral high horses and ivory towers, people are quick to condemn. But they don't know the circumstances. They don't know how to empathise.

And as I asked previously: where do you draw the line? As some people would argue that even if a woman did butcher your kids, or be carrying a deadly weapon, that she still wouldn't deserve to be hit by a man.

Yeah, it's not so black and white now. Is it?

Fifty shades of grey.

[Skykid]

Where do you draw the line? And I called you out on it...

Sorry I'm really confused. I agree with you that feminist equality should never equate to male on female fistfighting, I disagree with you that the woman in the video deserved an (admittedly prize-winning) uppercut.

We're talking about disagreeing with excessive force. I'm not sure what I've said to blur the line between any of these points.

I should note that while I wouldn't subscribe to your newsletter on the subject, somewhere deep within all the caustic phraseology I can just about glean some valuable points - but you're dressing them up in a fashion that transmits badly.

[replayme]

Where do you draw the line? And I called you out on it...

Sorry I'm really confused. I agree with you that feminist equality should never equate to male on female fistfighting, I disagree with you that the woman in the video deserved an (admittedly prize-winning) uppercut.

We're talking about disagreeing with excessive force. I'm not sure what I've said to blur the line between any of these points.

"Call me old-fashioned, but a man striking a woman - no matter how much of a pain in the ass - is really not cool".

No matter what, huh?

[replayme]

I should note that while I wouldn't subscribe to your newsletter on the subject, somewhere deep within all the caustic phraseology I can just about glean some valuable points - but you're dressing them up in a fashion that transmits badly.

I wouldn't subscribe to your newsletter on Nintendo or Hideo Kojima either. But that's my opinion.

[Skykid]

I think you need to learn better when someone is throwing you some rope. You're being way too defensive.

[replayme]

I think you need to learn better when someone is throwing you some rope. You're being way too defensive.

And you are taking the moral high ground whilst being perched in your ivory tower.

Edit: anyway, I found this (along with a few other links that I can't be bothered linking to):
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fe ... -violence/

[Skykid]

I think you need to learn better when someone is throwing you some rope. You're being way too defensive.

And you are taking the moral high ground whilst being perched in your ivory tower.

See?

If suggesting it's not right to uppercut anyone, male or female, is taking a moral high ground, then yes, I am. And all while perched in my motherfucking ivory tower bitches, recognise.

[trap15]

If power implies authority... Doesn't change the fact that some women have zero respect for authority.

And some women idolize Hitler, and some women think all men are scum.

Now switch 'women' with 'men' in all of the above. Has anything changed?

[replayme]

I think you need to learn better when someone is throwing you some rope. You're being way too defensive.

And you are taking the moral high ground whilst being perched in your ivory tower.

See?

If suggesting it's not right to uppercut anyone, male or female, is taking a moral high ground, then yes, I'm I am. And all while perched in my motherfucking ivory tower bitches, recognise.

Did you even read the link? As you clearly stated that hitting a woman (regardless of her moral character) in all circumstances was morally reprehensible?

So why the backtracking now?

I'm not arguing that men are perfect - as I've read about plenty of horror stories. But for a woman to get a free pass on the basis of her gender is discrimination. And that is double standards.

[replayme]

If power implies authority... Doesn't change the fact that some women have zero respect for authority.

And some women idolize Hitler, and some women think all men are scum.

Now switch 'women' with 'men' in all of the above. Has anything changed?

I don't know... I just think of Lord of the Flies. Just switch the kids over with women.

Has anything changed?

[spadgy]

Equal rights? Care to explain as to why the law is biased in favour of women when it comes to (unfounded) accusations of rape as well as child custody battles?

I don't know enough about this legal field in particular, but yes, I do believe that there are some places where the male gender is also victim of inequality. That shouldn't be the case.

While the view I've discussed supporting here is a little idealistic, the version of equality I'm talking about is one that treats both genders equally; not one that favours a particular gender. (EDIT: I originally wrote 'genre' instead of 'gender' there. It must be coming through that my brain wants to be posting elsewhere in the forum about games!).

I don't give a shit. Fact of the matter is that Spadgy's media career would be over in a heartbeat. His name and picture all over the front page. And a life that wouldn't be worth living.

I'm sure he'll be fine afterwards. Maybe. Trying to "rationalise" his broken dreams, and his tattered life.

Having my name singled out for that metaphorical situation wasn't too nice to see (EDIT: in fact, more than that, it's really an unpleasant experience. Of course, I'm sure that wasn't your intent replayme), but certainly, when a truly innocent person is accused of that kind of thing the impact it can have on their life is horrific.

The preposterousness of my implication was precisely the point, pal. I didn't actually think you were targeting me for my religion (and in truth I'm not all that religious); I was just groping clumsily for a way to make my point.

And my point was this: no group of people is beyond criticism simply because of their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or for any other reason. To do so is to undermine the entire premise of the egalitarian ideal, because you are then judging them differently based on the categories they can be lumped into. Everyone has a race, so to cry "racism" as a means of deflection just doesn't cut it. The Catholic thing was admittedly hamfisted.

You are clearly a gentleman and highly considerate of people's feelings, and I apologize if it seemed as though I was implying otherwise. It would be safe to mentally add a wink smiley to most of what I say.

No worries! And very good points there. I appreciate your response there.

[Bananamatic]

I don't really get why "MRA" is something negative and why every media site ever is white knighting feminism(the new, nutty, tumblr kind, not the "good old" kind that pretty much everyone agrees on) while attacking MRA

[NTSC-J]

If power implies authority... Doesn't change the fact that some women have zero respect for authority.

And some women idolize Hitler, and some women think all men are scum.

Now switch 'women' with 'men' in all of the above. Has anything changed?

I don't know... I just think of Lord of the Flies. Just switch the kids over with women.

Has anything changed?

The cool girls band together and tease Ralph for being fat, she gets an eating disorder, then everyone does each other's hair and picks berries until help arrives. No boars are killed.

[Mischief Maker]

If power implies authority... Doesn't change the fact that some women have zero respect for authority.

I said DON'T be willfully obtuse like a girl!

Authority is another word for power. Your argument is essentially "power implies power, and the powerless are not exercising their responsibly over other people's power!"

And I suspect I know damn well why you're being obtuse because...

I don't really get why "MRA" is something negative and why every media site ever is white knighting feminism(the new, nutty, tumblr kind, not the "good old" kind that pretty much everyone agrees on) while attacking MRA

Because there is nothing less manly and more pathetic than a man claiming victimhood so he can avoid feeling responsible for his own unhappiness.

In truth, the MRAs and the SJWs are the same kind of unhappy man. They're both desperately horny and lonely, and both are using ineffective techniques. MRAs try to get laid by interpreting the rules in a way that obligates women to sleep with them. SJWs try to get laid by telling women "me too!"

When both techniques fail, the MRAs and SJWs blame each other instead of their shoddy techniques.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

And as I asked previously: where do you draw the line?

The first law of the Varda is to use equal power against itself.

[Krooze L-Roy]

I don't really get why "MRA" is something negative and why every media site ever is white knighting feminism(the new, nutty, tumblr kind, not the "good old" kind that pretty much everyone agrees on) while attacking MRA

Socially and legally, things move in a certain direction, and MRAs are kind of like a kid walking the wrong way on an escalator; they're not gonna change the direction it moves, and the only outcome is annoying people.

The modern egalitarian movement isn't an attempt at equality so much as an attempt to invert what it's proponents perceive to be the existing social class structure. The place of white heterosexual males (the primary demographic of the MRA "movement") on that totem pole has long been settled, and nobody on the upper statuses cares to hear any more complaining from down there.

Currently, feminism seems to be primarily pitted against the transexual rights movement. MRAs are just a vanquished opponent, heckling from the sidelines. Will pre-op transexuals be allowed to dangle their dongs in womens rooms throughout the country? Will beefed up shemales get carte blanche to demolish biological women in sports competitions? Sit back, grab some popcorn and enjoy.

[Skykid]

Did you even read the link? As you clearly stated that hitting a woman (regardless of her moral character) in all circumstances was morally reprehensible?

So why the backtracking now?

What backtracking? I didn't read any link, I just watched a video.

Lookit: Maybe that chick was a loudmouthed ho' deserved to get squared off somewhat. Did I like the comeuppance he gave her? No, it made me feel uneasy.

Now you're banging on about women who, if they want to strut like a chap, should prepare to get dealt out like one - or in this case, prepare to have their lights put out by one. I'm saying yes, screw feminism in this respect, because it's a case of vastly unequal odds.

How about this; you're walking home from work and there's some loudmouthed eight year old kid from a bad family who likes to follow you down the road calling you names every day. You're thirty, he's eight - there's a gulf of difference in manpower. But he's giving it large so he should be prepared to accept the consequences, right? So would you decide to smack the teeth out of his head with the old one-two, man to man style, and finish with a cross-up supercancel to dislocate his shoulder and fracture his collarbone?

Or even better, you have a son who's been pissing all day about wanting the new Green Ranger and you don't have enough to buy it. The kid loses his shit and tells you he hates you, before spitting a four letter curse at his own dad. Do you then decide to tear the little bastard off a Double Dragon gut punch and put his ribs through his spleen?

Gender equality whatever. The point is that guy could have grabbed her and thrown her off the bus without giving her a George Foreman first, because one on one there's little to nothing she could have done to leave a dent on him.

[Blinge]

i think even without any social pressure or conditioning, the average man is probably still more drawn towards prestige and career-making than the average woman is, and vice-versa for housewife/houseman duty.

I disagree with this. I fervently believe that every child is a tabula rasa and grows up according to the world around her/him.
Unfortunately this must be nigh impossible to prove in a scientific manner. Patriarchal influence extends to every aspect of our lives, most of which is so ingrained it's hard to detect, down to our very language.
How do you justify removing a sample of children from this reality in order to see how they'd develop in its absence? You don't. They'd emerge into a vastly different world.


see how I said her/him up there^
does that look weird to you, compared to "him/her"? thought so..

[Obiwanshinobi]

You think so? "Her or him" kinda flows here.

[glitch]

i think even without any social pressure or conditioning, the average man is probably still more drawn towards prestige and career-making than the average woman is, and vice-versa for housewife/houseman duty.

I disagree with this.

and i am by no means sure myself. my guess would be that you still see some degree of bias (though more like 60/40 than 90/10), though who knows, could end up 50/50. i have no stakes in it either way.

I fervently believe that every child is a tabula rasa and grows up according to the world around her/him.

specifically in respect to the above issue or do you believe all gender biases in cognition are 100% environmental? (and if so: why do you believe that?)

see how I said her/him up there^
does that look weird to you, compared to "him/her"? thought so..

didn't even notice until you pointed it out, tbh...