The feminism argument has become redundant. The word "feminism" doesn't really mean or stand for any specific ideology. For example women who support the rights of women to participate in porn call themselves feminists. What do those women who appose porn and say it's detrimental to women call themselves? Feminists... Search online (like wikipedia) "feminist sex wars". "Feminism" has been casually linked to anything and everything female.
For women,this guy is probably "just a friend" or the gay friend that listens to all of women's problems but never has any sex with them;a real doormat & a complete pussy.He was also probably raised by a single mom that taught him how to pee sitting down and that he always should respect women rather than women actually earning it.Feminists want equal rights only if it is to there advantage only.You never see feminists protesting that Debra LaFave go to prison for having sex with a minor boy.
haha, men over the age of 40 have the same mentality = Women in the kitchen. If i have to hear 1 more joke about " bitch get into the kitchen and make me a sandwich" i'm going to kick a dog.
this guy is a moron. he's asking for regular folks to be bio-chemists to prove what we've always known all along. That being is that women are socially motivated thus they go into the soft sciences as they are more theory driven than hard numbers driven. Men, without outside influences, will always dominate the hard sciences because it appeals to our meticulous and sometimes solitary nature. There's no denying that testosterone causes dominate behavior.. and men have it.
Well, ArgusEyes is (or so I'm told) a Biochemist and Geneticist. If you disagree with his statement that male female behavior differences can be explained mostly by biology, then you should argue with him as a biologist.
This guy is a giant mangina...but you can't entirely blame him, its the modern propaganda. This guy works and goes home and in his free time watches TV. Every time a woman shits on this guy, he wonders what he did wrong - so feel sorry for him.
why do you criticize arguseyes so forcefully, yet give boundless eyes a free pass? arguseyes is clearly her intellectual superior and is actually thinking about these issues, and reasoning out the relevant arguments. boundless eyes, on the other hand, is simply regurgitating the same old feminist dogma.
you say you know there's not an organized conspiracy of males out to get people, yet millions of women believe this literally and devote their whole lives to fighting it. maybe you should make a video telling them it's not true and see what kind of e-mail responses from these devoted feminists.
Making comparisons is not the same as equating. He did not equate feminists with nazis. If you compare the conflicts women/gays/blacks face, you don't equate them, nor do you equate philosophical extremism when you show comparisons.
if you want to talk about social conditioning, women would view a door being open for them negatively, if they've been indoctrinated by feminist ideas to do so. if i open a door for a woman, it's because i feel good doing nice things for random people. i also open doors for men as well, by the way, but of course i'm more inclined to do so for women. regardless of whether this is some byproduct of patriarchy, it doensn't fucking matter, it's a nice thing to do. if that offends you, your problem.
You keep harping on "destructive socialization." Where's your proof that this is taking place, or that this is the cause of differential representation of women in math and science (or the cause of any other social malady)?
Feminism once meant the women's movement which fought for equal rights for women, because they didn't have equal rights. Since women now have equal rights, what the hell does feminism mean, other than a leftist political group for paranoid women?
I'm very curious why a person in the hard sciences like biochemistry is so adamant about defending feminism. If you care at all about academic honesty and rigor, why would you support a group that is guilty of churning out such shoddy research, much of it downright fraudulent? Do you have a feminist girlfriend? Maybe you're a marxist. I don't know. You don't make sense.
I don't identify with a movement. I'm a feminist in the sense I believe in equal rights and treatment of men and women. I'm also tired of people pretending they know which variables of personality and identity are biologically determined. Using a priori assumptions about what is biologically determined is just a weak justification for what I see as negative socialization in both men and women.
what about your a priori assumption that "negative socialization" is the cause of personality traits? you yourself are making some huge, unjustified assumptions.
@Spacemonkey2084 No, you're a feminist in the sense that all men sufficiently indoctrinated in the anti-male mythos are, ostracized to the point where the only social utility you're seen to be able to provide is as lackey to the femifascists. How have they made you so blind to plain simply fkn reality?
"A single data point is not a trend." Pardon my French, but no shit.
When Argus used statistics on differential representation of women in math and science, I didn't take it to mean he's using it as absolute proof of biological differences. So he's not jumping to conclusions based on those statistics. Feminists are jumping to conclusions! It's idiotic to say these statistics prove sex discrimination. It's not even a reasonable conclusion. It's utter crap!
"A single data point is not a trend." was a response to ConservativeAtheist, not ArgusEyes.
I didn't say sex discrimination. I would say it's mostly a matter of destructive socialization in the US. I know you're allergic to that word but we all know that people are trained into their programming to *some* degree. The only debate is where the line is.
You should know that hormones (among other biomolecules) affect behavior. And that the homeostasis levels of hormones are controlled by genes. What the hell are they teaching you in your biochem classes anyway?
I suspect you're letting your personal political views influence your objectivity when it comes to the nature/nurture debate, rather than relying on the science. Stephen J. Gould was like that too.
Let me help you with some objective scientific analysis of reality. I made a video called "A single data point is not a trend."
Now, allow me to mock your assumption that nature is all that's at play here;
"Clearly since women used to be a tiny minority of biology degrees 100 years ago they were bad at biology then! Since they now outnumber men in bio degrees clearly they have evolved very rapidly!"
Or possibly you don't actually understand evolution or biological systems.
Your example of women in biology classes then and now is a funny, but obviously gross oversimplification of the situation. a more meaningful question might be why are there nowadays more women in biology than physics?
are we talking about socialization, or are we talking about laws and rules that govern a society?
Well in defence of mystrymanolove I have to say that your mannerism in the video indicates that you dismiss chemical differences,it seems ,that's why I asked,
Are you saying that their are not chemical differences in women and men that affect their behaviours,which would be incorrect, if not then I stand corrected,One case in point is crying.On average a women cry 5x as much as men because stress toxins build in the body that affect the nerves,testosterone buffers the nerves,helping to render this toxin less hazardous,crying eliminates that toxin from the body,since women have less testosterone,hence they cry more.
That's clearly not what I've said in this video. Explaining the mechanism by which patriarchal socialization is possible is not the same as claiming it's responsible for everything. It's not even similar.
That's all the hand holding I'm willing to give you on this argument.
Well I agree with that, feminists claim that "patriarchy" is the reason that women are "oppressed", that men are the reason why they are "held down". They blame genitals for controlling the world with words like "phallocentricism" when no genital has ever been in charge of anything. These are the kind of things that feminists say and they use this kind of "logic" to push their propaghanda. Feminists really don't know what they want and they all claim they want the same thing, thats a lie.
Spacemonkey2084, I have just watched the video from Arguseyes and I can't belive that you are refering to the same video?
you seem to get the polar opposite 180 degree meaning from what he is saying? or you twist and grossly exaggerate the actual meaning that he portrays so that you have something to undermine
for example, show me please where Arguseyes states that Femenists are Nazis? if you watch his video again you will see why and with which relevance he uses the subject in this context
He uses a quote that includes Nazis, as well as Islamic terrorists and Stalin's communists. In this he is talking about how a sense of victimhood can be a great motivator to evil and connects this quote to feminists through the charge of perceived victimhood.
This line of argument is an emotional appeal. It would be just as correct to use it to explain why the civil rights movement in the US was wrong.
While it may be an interesting philosophical conversation about psychological causes of evil it is not relevant here. To suggest that feminists will ever display the kind of evil that any of those groups showed it to be a conspiracy theorist. Feminists do not want to gas people, put them in mass graves, or wage global religious war.
ArgusEyes isn't a conspiracy theorist and isn't stupid. However he over reaches with the use of this quote.
you said arguseyes overreaches with the use of that quote from dennis praeger that a sense of victimhood is a great motivator to evil.
i guess you haven't read up on your feminism, ie catherine mckinnon and many others who want to use the power of the legislature to destroy men's lives and do crazy stuff like putting a tax on men or limiting their births. when these feminists say gender war, they mean it literally.
Here's something for you to play with... Men are superior to women trying to behave like men. Women are superior to men trying to behave like women. Knowing that not everyone values gender distinction, I leave the value judgments to you as I already have my own to contend with. The feminazi is not the same creature as the himinazi, but a rose by any other name is still a plant. Right brain...Left brain... There will always be differences in thought. Personally, I say "long live the difference".
You scare me. Tell us why sexism is bad. If you open a door for a man (it happens) are you being the alpha dominant male. You mate as a heterosexual with only women if your a man. But isn't that sexism? You are having sex based on only discrimination. Academics is nice but sometime we have to be part of the real world.
It is important to understand that females have inherent biological value in terms of sexual selection where as the male is the variable from which to choose. The males is produced. Male value is derived from function and utility to the female and offspring. One can see from his physical form alone and female attraction to such utility. This does indeed extend beyond the physical. Male power and labor have and always will serve the female. Feminism denies this. We are meant for mutual need.
I deny your concept because everyone has different perceptions but I am not limited to anything. Utility is not something we are born with yet something that is learned.
I will agree however that most women look towards or have an attraction to power,function and utility but not all.
Laws of attraction can be heavily influenced based on society, culture and religion, just to name some outside factors.
It is my contention that feminism coined the current definition of patriarchy as a division of power between the sexes which is grossly self serving to men where in actuality much if not all things men do are for the benefit of women. In all aspects of male power and labor it is his intention for a female and offspring to be the beneficiary. To in fact garner and serve the needs of a female. You tell me who is oppressed.
They fit into it very easily. Homosexuals and transsexuals to my knowledge don't show any signs of being less able to compete professionally in areas involving the hard sciences and higher math. They don't seem to suffer this kind of biological barrier any more than women do.
If you're asking about their sexual preference then I'd say there is very good evidence that it's biological. I like evidence. Socialization is not my theory, it's a concept that's widely accepted, including by ArgusEyes
I'm asking about people who despite clearly being socialized with one Gender Identity (and all the traits associated with it.) choose that of the opposite gender instead.
If gender (note that I'm using the word gender and not sex) was a social construct this should not be happening.
QUOTE: "PORNOGRAPHY: THE SECRET HISTORY OF CIVILISATION is a six-part series, which tells for the first time on British television the history of pornography. This landmark series charts the changes in sexual imagery prompted by the advent of new technologies over thousands of years: from ancient times to print, photography, film, video and the Internet....
I think I've lent it to people for reference or just looked up random stuff like specifics of the cell cycle. Most of the stuff I've looked up is probably available in shorter form on the web.
The books to keep are the ones where they're specialized to the point that the information isn't free online.
ArgusEyes has a British accent, I wouldn't argue with him.
Also he never said socialisation didn't matter, he said quite the opposite, that it did matter but that it wasn't the only thing that affected an individuals behaviour.
Actually, biology does make a difference. There is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a matriarchal society anywhere on the earth at any point in history.
There isn't. We know almost nothing about how the common Egyptians lived. All we really know about is how Pharaoh and his priests lived, and even there, all we know is what they wanted us to know.
Okay, the second and final point you made I'd like to touch on was when you said something about women NOT(?) wanting men to pull out chairs and be "chivalrous" with them (weird, I thought the ladies liked that...I hope you see where I'm going to take this). I though they LIKED being the damsel in distress right? This touches on what I said earlier about women wanting EVERYTHING "both ways at the SAME TIME". The female mind is the perfect example of a paradox. Like I said...schizophrenic.
I'd like to finally touch on two key points you brought up in this video. The first being the "nonexistence" of an organized conspiracy of oppressive men. You are looking at it wrong. They DO exist, but their goal isn't to oppress women, it's to oppress EVERYONE they deem inferior to them (99% of the world population basically). One thing that they have done is break up the family in the late 50s and it has went downhill from there. Controlling the media is very helpful as well. (cont)
Most people see these two hemispheres being connected as a good thing, but it actually quite counter productive in the realm of everyday life. It creates a sort of minor schizophrenia in the female brain. This is why it takes most women MUCH longer to make a decision about...anything. No matter if it's important or trivial, women seem to sit there and mentally weigh EVERY SINGLE trivial option, meanwhile the man has used simple deduction logic to make his mind up on the same decision. (cont)
Wow, I don't even know where to begin picking this video apart. First and foremost the absolute MOST paramount thing EVERYONE must understand about women is this.........wait for it........THEY WANT EVERYTHING BOTH WAYS! If something, ANYTHING, is in their favor, they cling to it. If something is NOT in their favor (according to them), they want to get rid of it. I believe this to be caused by the tragic unseparated hemispheres of the female brain. (cont)
should be vigilant for their effects without being censored by pejoratives such as "Godwin's law" being constantly thrown at us.
Another human trait is hatred of those who do not disagree. You obviously think that I am some sort of hateful individual as indicated by the little reference to "perhaps you will equate me with a Nazi sympathiser". I am not a demon, I just happen to disagree with you.
Like I said in my video. I can easily follow your argument. I can see how you're linking a mentality of victimization to bad acts.
My problem is that the two are so unrelated it's similarly valid to make comments on basic human nature and warn that both Nazi's and some random person are both human. It's an emotional appeal and I maintain it was inappropriately used. It may be philosophically interesting but I don't see it as an effective argument against feminism.
I was reading a quote by another person and he mentioned the nazis in a list along with many other groups (terrorists, criminals). You picked up on nazis and basically insunated that I said feminists are nazis, that is incorrect.
I don't think you're being honest with yourself, you went through a list of nazi policies and contrasted it with feminists, you also saud "I don't see an equal sign here". You were clearly taking it too far.
If there was an effect of human though that can lead to bad actions, then I think we should identify this so that we can avoid those bad actions again. If you see yourself as a victim of a group then actions against that group become more legitimate in your eyes, you lose any human relation to that group and they appear more demonic in your eyes this results in hatred and atrocity. These are basics of human evil an atrocity and we (cont)
mandated. Feminism has won, people are terrified of slighting women and whatever slights they do undergo are insignificant compared to the state mandated actual oppression of men. This is the unassailable argument which cannot be addressed. You need to watch my video "men are more oppressed than women" which lays out this case.
As for people being afraid to slight women.. I will find some anecdotal court cases for you and also some domestic violence statistics suggesting that being slighted is the least of their worries.
Perhaps, while you are at it, you will also look at the BROAD definition of domestic violence AND the FACT that men report Violence far less often than women. These points should open your eyes to how misleading these "statistics" can be. As they were designed to be.
~3:57 "I've witnesses a lot of sexism in my life, I don't know what world you live in if you haven't"
Sexism is a two way street. I don't understand how you guys breeze past the Harriet Harman thing. This is a woman who says that she is for putting women into these positions because they are women. That is discrimination based upon sex and thus it is sexism by the book. Never mind what the reasoning is, it is sexist and it is governmentally (cont)
I accept your case that most feminists don't think it's a shadowy cabal. I don't automatically want to think the worst of people so if you believe that and you are sure that BoundlessEyes believes that then I will accept that. But people write a lot of conspiratorial sounding stuff and I wish that they'd get a grip on it, tone down the hyperbole and explain their ideas a little (cont)
ArgusEyes has already distanced himself from those that refer to feminists as feminazi. He seriously dislikes this term.
You don't have any scientific evidence for socialization it can however be traced back to the 19th century when it was popular to disassociate humanity with the beast nature that is humanity. What one can only term as denial. It wasn't popular in the scientific community to think us (civillized society) as anything but humane and better than our human nature.
I'm suprised that you as a biochemist you are supporting socialization theory. I would probably go as far as to say you are a poor excuse for a for a biochemist if you believe socialization theory.
I would point you in the direction of any online source that talks about neolithic women like this one:
hhhh(.)org/maia/neolithic.html
and then watch video OYfoGTIG7pY and x-ewvCNguug
to come to a better understanding of biology humans actions.
the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.
They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.
When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
This also fits my personal observations. I used to be a Mensa member and I can think of only one woman with whom I could have an in depth conversation at the same intellectual level (a proud mother of three as well as a legal councelor, by the way), whereas men with the same level as far easier to find. Even most educated women I know tend to be either very shallow or very ignorant.
@compugeek7221 : Nope. The vast majority of women just have less affinity with technology than men much the same way the vast majority of men have less affinity with social interaction than women. This can be explained by the differences between the male and female brain and can be examplified by the fact that these differences are also reflected at top colleges (where men dominate eg. exact science and women dominate several of the the human sciences).
@OutOfTheBoxThinker What is wrong with me biologically where I like technology and excel at programming and such normal "male" thinking that I often have males in my class asking my advice as to how a certain program be written? Is there a diagnosed biological disorder that I could possibly have, and what medication should I seek to correct my obvious neurological disorder?
@compugeek7221 : Well, the only biological disorder that I know of that is linked to increased affinity with technology and mathematics is autism. Especially Asperger's Syndrome (a type of autism) is very common among IT geeks and in fact believe to have Asperger's Syndrome myself (I'm a programmer as well). In case you don't know : Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory is an Asperger's stereotype.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting you're abnormal. There's nothing wrong or abnormal about being a minority.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I don't however have asperger's, as for autism I can't honestly say whether or not I have it. I know that you are not saying that I personally am abnormal...but if you're going to argue biological reductionism, one would think that because I don't fall into the "normal" biological category that I am placed in, that there must be something wrong with me either biologically or neurologically that should be corrected in order to be "functional".
@compugeek7221 : What makes you so sure you don't have Asperger's but maybe a different kind of autism? There isn't THAT big a difference...
Again, being a minority =/= abnormality. Most (if not all) human capabilities (eg. strength, IQ, EQ, ...) are statistically spread within specific groups (eg. genders, races, classes, ...) like a Bell Curve. This means that the vast majority is average compared to the rest of the group, but there's a small minority on either side of the spectrum.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I believe I am able to relate socially and don't find it's like communicating to an alien way of thinking. You seem to think that I am accusing you personally of being intolerant, I am not. I am saying that if biology is SOLELY responsible for our actions then those actions that go outside the biological norm should be treated, if you find this offensive then I would have to tell you that that is how I feel about biological reductionism, not you personally.
@compugeek7221 : Most mental traits are a mixture of nature (genetics) and nurture (education & experience). It seems naive to claim that ANY skill is solely related to nature or solely related to nurture, however it seems pretty obvious to me that nature is the most important factor when it comes to intelligence and affinity to certain skills.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I agree that relying on any ONE is intellectually dishonest, but given that you think you may have asperger's would you not be intellectually dishonest in saying that nature is the most important in your opinion because you are at a disadvantage when it comes to connecting socially?
@compugeek7221 : The combination of my Asperger's and my high IQ (137 according to the WAIS-III scale) puts me in an interesting position as it allows me to analyse human behavor in a more detached, more openminded and more rational fashion than most people. And of course, I always debate my findings with my best friends (a lesbian with Borderline Personality Disorder and a man who has a psychopathic father) and my girlfriend (a wheelchair-bound woman with a PhD in bio-engineering).
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I do have to admit I am a little jealous at the seeming "natural" ability one of asperger's has to be able to rationalize, but I also see it as an easy trap to fall into reductionism, that being said it's good to hear that you debate with others with differing points of view. I have had to train myself to be detached, but I also don't count out one's emotions as irrational just because they are emotions. Not all emotions are irrational, only unquestioned ones.
@compgeek: There are different kinds of emotions. Intuition (which includes intuitive empathy) is basically a set of emotions that trigger based on subconscious processing of observed reality and because the process is generated subconsciously it tends to be fairly irrational with most people. Other emotions are generated eg. by rational thought and therefore not irrational. It really depends on the kind of emotion you're talking about. By the way, Asperger's basically means having no intuition.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker So is subconscious completely unable to be rationalized, I understand that by the very nature subconscious is "unseen" but does that mean you can not question the manifestations of such behavior in a rational manner, and if that is so does that render psychology useless?
@compugeek7221 : You can compare subconscious processing with using a framework as a programmer. It's much easier and more efficient to work with than without using any framework, but you lose sight of the basic code that is under de hood. Many people have a lot of cognitive dissonance and subconscious processing ignores it (leading to irrational behavior) while rational analysis points it out (avoiding irrational behavior).
@compugeek7221 : Psychology is useful for various things. Besides increasing our understanding of the human mind, it can also help people to recognise the cognitive dissonance within their thinking, to fill gaps of knowledge, etc. Psycho-analysis, however, is proven by qualified psychologists to be nothing but a pseudoscience and it should not be taken seriously at all.
strawman video from the male suplicant . angus is saying that biology is a factor in the way men and women behave , feminism is based on the idea ,that it's all nurture .
today I was on facebook , a bunch of women where discusing thier dates , and discribing them as " IT " , nothing was said by any of thier male friends , can you Imagine what shit a man would get if he discribed a women as "IT",
I'm sorry. I have no idea where I lost you along the way.
I did not say there are no biological causes for psychological differences. I won't go any further into this, I'm tired of explaining it. Trying to pretend I'm saying that doesn't win you anything. I'd say "try again" but I hope you don't and save us both the trouble.
Who do I look like? I can't help but be curious now.
You literally said there are no biological causes for abilities in maths or language, in spite of the evidence that shows the oposite and completely contradictory to common sense.
From where I'm sitting, you look like the picture you're trying to paint of ArgusEyes. Where did _he_ claim there are no social causes for behavioural differences?
Sorry, after I posted that I went and tried attaching it directly. It seems to be linked now.
I don't know why but when I tried uploading it as a response it didn't work. Once I tried making it a response after it uploaded then it did. The whole system seems a little iffy.
By the way, I sent you a PM where I explained that feminism was indeed developed as some sort of conspiracy against Western civilisation. You just make the (false) assumption that we KNOW this isn't true. If we really KNOW this isn't true, then why don't you back this up?
Feel free to respond to my PM and provide any arguments against the arguments provided in the lecture I linked to.
I need to grow up because I believe that spacemonkey obliterated ArgusEyes through sound reasoning, and chose to display my beliefs regarding this in 6 characters that essentially convey this thought in internet-speak?
Sir, I've seen your plebian attempts at arguments in this comment section. Do you wish to awaken me and provoke your own demolition?
ArgusEyes' arguments were weak. They were primarily logical fallacies, and thus were not even deserving of such a respectful response as what they got.
Spacemonkey2084's nonsense is entirely based on pseudo-scientific nonsense and logical fallacies. I couldn't find any in ArgusEyes' arguments, but feel free to point them out.
Ok listen bone head I dont care who you agreed with I was simply pointing out your Low-Class unintelligent term use. Kind of like when people use the term (Fucktard) which is primarily used by the type of people that are guests on the Jerry Springer Show and revealing their true character.
Now to continue your stupidity you threaten to come after me with your obviously brilliant mind I mean whats next You will talk to me in madeup Klingon?.....lol
you know, it's funny how you put a word that suggests intelligence (atheist) next to one that implies intellectual and moral retardation (conservative) in your username. I shall add to the gang-beating of you in this comment section. You have provoked it.
Anyone who wasn't a liberal when he was young, has no heart. Anyone who didn't become a conservative growing old had no brain.
Liberalism is an ideology that appeals to naieve people who're guided mostly by their emotions, whereas any rational person inevitable comes to the conclusion that conservatism is the only way to run a healthy society.
The pay gap between men and women is caused mostly by a difference in priorities between men and women. Men and women choose different careers because of different interests. For example, men are more inclined to take a job in science, engineering or mechanics whereas women are more inclined to take a job emphasising on interaction with other people like psychology, medicine or law.
That's bullshit. Male and female brains operate differently as a consequence of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Therefore we have different talents and different interests. Homosexua
Homosexual men who behave more feminine also tend to have interests and talents more associated with women. Similarly, lesbians who behave more masculine tend to have interests and talents more associated with men. Often, these lesbians were raised just like any other girl and these homosexual men were raised like any other guy. The cause is likely hormonal.
Actually, I don't identify with my gender, and very specific circumstances contributed to that which had nothing to do with biology. I LEARNT not to identify with it.
What you're observing is the narrowness of gender roles taking effect. There is no mid-ground, so those of us seeking to escape our own gender mirror the other in the hopes it is a more respectable conventional stance than creating your own.
No it's not. I watched the video shortly after my reply and I couldn't find a single argument that even remotely undermines what I said. All he could come up with, is claims that the evidence is inconclusive (which it is not) and the claim that the fact that 5% or less of engineering and IT students are women is irrelevant because women are are now overrepresented in biology and underrepresented in the past (which is completely irrelevant since women WERE discriminated back then but NOT today).
No one said it isn't possible to deviate from one's biologically determined nature. Apparently that's what you did. I don't think it's a healthy thing to do so, though, but you'll probably find out later in life. Most people do quite a lot of stupid things in their twenties before they come to realise what's really important.
Anyway, just for the record... I'm most attracted to women who're anything but typical women mentally speaking. I find typical women to be quite annoying, actually.
You are totally missing the point. Because there ARE so many obvious differences between a woman and a man physically, biologically, then WHY is it so far fetched to believe that also the brain that causes actions will be different between males and females. MOST feminists today refuses to take this into consideration, and takes for granted that our actions are ALL based upon social constructions.
Men and women are not developed from the same zygote. The extra X chromosome women have and the Y chromosome men have determine physical, hormonal and mental differences between men and women.
Well your behavior is truly mature and not the actions of an Emotional Little Dingbat at all!
Dont you find it Ironic that it takes Spacemonkey2084 a Man to make a rational arguement that Women arent Irrational because the Female in the conversation is to Emotional and Irrational to do so herself?.....lol
Yes I did watch the one which I commented on and while I disagreed with her conclusions I didnt find it completely irrational although she became irrational and overly emotional in her comments in the threads toward me needlessly.
If you really want to take the time and effort to read through them you will see that and if you dont then that says more about your emotional stability than who is right or wrong in any of these discussions.
I've discussed with her on one of her videos and she's shown to be extremely prejudiced against men, completely ignorant on history, etc. She also refused to continue our discussion when she was out of arguments. Typical irrational behavior...
If you consider her to be a rational individual, this speaks mostly to your own prejudices.
I'm not sure where Israel and capitalism (Capitolism?) come in, but I don't see how you can defend an apartheid state like Israel that abuses numerous human rights on a daily basis, ignores several UN resolutions and can't even exist without billions of US donations. Capitalism is a system of exploitation that leads to greed, poor quality products, environmental disasters, etc. I'm not defending communism either, but rather suggest a third way aka solidarism.
Capitolism (thanks for the typo-misspelling correct....lol) is Economic Darwinism and works as well as it does because it promotes competition and forces companies to provide better products and services at cheap prices as well as drives drug companies to invent crucial medicines with money it wouldnt have for research if not for profits. As far as environmental thats everyone everywhere except in the Jungle.
That's the theory. In reality, capitalism leads to monopolisation which in turn leads to the exploitation of millions by a handful of people. It also does not lead to quality, as quality isn't cost-effective and companies only care about cost-effectiveness in a capitalist society. And finally, it causes anti-social behavior and distrust among people.
Not true at all the way that these companies win the customers over is by providing the best quality for the best price and if the customer doesnt like the product or the service the punish that company by purchasing from a different company.
monopolies can not legally exist in the USA and when a company comes close to creating one the government stops them as they did with Microsoft.
I dont want my money to be taken forcibly to pay for others that will not work unless they cant work.
The way companies win customers over is by providing more and better advertising than other companies. If the customer doesn't like the product, he often doesn't have a clue that there are better alternatives available because there usually don't have the funds for extensive ad campaigns. It's mostly large multi-nationals producing mediocre products that do.
Monopolies can't legally exist, but there are many ways to uphold a virtual monopoly without breaking that law.
Anyway, if you'd like to continue our discussion on capitalism, please do so via PM. This video deals with the topic of feminism and therefore isn't the right place to discuss on capitalism. Also, PMs don't have character limitations.
It's "capitalism". And the fact of the matter is that monopolies generally emerge naturally. Evolution causes more diversity, not less. Capitalism that does lead to diversity, in fact, is economic intelligent design, as it requires some sort of law from an intelligent designer (government) to prevent monopolies.
Regarding the Israeli / Palestinian conflict I am decidedly against the side that straps bombs to their own children and before you claim they dont I have pictures proving they do.
Now thats not the only reason I side with Israel but that one fact is enough alone.
Those resisting German occupation during WW1 and WW2 are called heroes. Those Americans who resisted against British tyranny are called heroes. Those South-Africans who resisted against Apartheid are called heroes. Yet, those people fighting (very inhumane) Israeli occupation and its apartheid regime are called terrorists and defamed. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that? I too might strap a bomb to my chest if my people were treated the way Israel treats th Palestinians on their OWN BLOODY LAND.
I might agree with you to a certain point if they only strapped bombs to their own chest but what you obviously intentionally didnt address was my point that they strap bombs on their own children and I am not talking about teens I am talking about small children and I even offered you not strong evidence but irrefutable proof of this assertion and yet instead of addressing it head on you tried to weasel around it by slightly changing what I said which was an obvious attempt at a (Straw Man).
I agree lets focus on the discussion at hand but the one last thing I will say on the matter in this comment is if you want to see proof go to my page or ask me for the link in PM thanks.
Yes, thank-you, I'm not entirely stupid, I was referring to the clearly significant identical development of zygotes before the first signs of sexual development.
There's a clearly significant identical development of zygotes between most mammals. The similarity between zygotes doesn't mean anything. You could just as well argue that chimps and humans are equal because they share 99% of their DNA.
The trouble is the complete lack of evidence that I've been presented with. Because over the past decades women have been consistently closing performance gaps in math and the hard sciences there is no reason to believe this trend will not continue. Current performance differences are weak evidence at best when we're still showing upward trends.
Of course there are biological differences but we don't know what they are. We don't know what differences in aptitudes exist yet.
The feminism argument has become redundant. The word "feminism" doesn't really mean or stand for any specific ideology. For example women who support the rights of women to participate in porn call themselves feminists. What do those women who appose porn and say it's detrimental to women call themselves? Feminists... Search online (like wikipedia) "feminist sex wars". "Feminism" has been casually linked to anything and everything female.
Inequality is a far more relevant topic.
embracingreality 8 months ago
For women,this guy is probably "just a friend" or the gay friend that listens to all of women's problems but never has any sex with them;a real doormat & a complete pussy.He was also probably raised by a single mom that taught him how to pee sitting down and that he always should respect women rather than women actually earning it.Feminists want equal rights only if it is to there advantage only.You never see feminists protesting that Debra LaFave go to prison for having sex with a minor boy.
East180thStreetYard 9 months ago
Well said, sir.
moronicnotions 1 year ago
haha, men over the age of 40 have the same mentality = Women in the kitchen. If i have to hear 1 more joke about " bitch get into the kitchen and make me a sandwich" i'm going to kick a dog.
Larendria 1 year ago
this guy is a moron. he's asking for regular folks to be bio-chemists to prove what we've always known all along. That being is that women are socially motivated thus they go into the soft sciences as they are more theory driven than hard numbers driven. Men, without outside influences, will always dominate the hard sciences because it appeals to our meticulous and sometimes solitary nature. There's no denying that testosterone causes dominate behavior.. and men have it.
anime1973 1 year ago
I never saw a bearded woman before !
East180thStreetYard 1 year ago
Well, ArgusEyes is (or so I'm told) a Biochemist and Geneticist. If you disagree with his statement that male female behavior differences can be explained mostly by biology, then you should argue with him as a biologist.
DarthConnis9999 1 year ago
30 million fetal humans dead, largely due to the efforts of feminists. Feminist-nazi link #1.
Averyofthemain 1 year ago
This guy is a giant mangina...but you can't entirely blame him, its the modern propaganda. This guy works and goes home and in his free time watches TV. Every time a woman shits on this guy, he wonders what he did wrong - so feel sorry for him.
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago 2
@spacemonkey
why do you criticize arguseyes so forcefully, yet give boundless eyes a free pass? arguseyes is clearly her intellectual superior and is actually thinking about these issues, and reasoning out the relevant arguments. boundless eyes, on the other hand, is simply regurgitating the same old feminist dogma.
vbritsi 2 years ago 2
@spacemonkey
you say you know there's not an organized conspiracy of males out to get people, yet millions of women believe this literally and devote their whole lives to fighting it. maybe you should make a video telling them it's not true and see what kind of e-mail responses from these devoted feminists.
vbritsi 2 years ago
Making comparisons is not the same as equating. He did not equate feminists with nazis. If you compare the conflicts women/gays/blacks face, you don't equate them, nor do you equate philosophical extremism when you show comparisons.
tyciol 2 years ago
if you want to talk about social conditioning, women would view a door being open for them negatively, if they've been indoctrinated by feminist ideas to do so. if i open a door for a woman, it's because i feel good doing nice things for random people. i also open doors for men as well, by the way, but of course i'm more inclined to do so for women. regardless of whether this is some byproduct of patriarchy, it doensn't fucking matter, it's a nice thing to do. if that offends you, your problem.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
You keep harping on "destructive socialization." Where's your proof that this is taking place, or that this is the cause of differential representation of women in math and science (or the cause of any other social malady)?
Feminism once meant the women's movement which fought for equal rights for women, because they didn't have equal rights. Since women now have equal rights, what the hell does feminism mean, other than a leftist political group for paranoid women?
puyen58 2 years ago 9
I'm very curious why a person in the hard sciences like biochemistry is so adamant about defending feminism. If you care at all about academic honesty and rigor, why would you support a group that is guilty of churning out such shoddy research, much of it downright fraudulent? Do you have a feminist girlfriend? Maybe you're a marxist. I don't know. You don't make sense.
puyen58 2 years ago 5
I don't defend poorly done research
I don't identify with a movement. I'm a feminist in the sense I believe in equal rights and treatment of men and women. I'm also tired of people pretending they know which variables of personality and identity are biologically determined. Using a priori assumptions about what is biologically determined is just a weak justification for what I see as negative socialization in both men and women.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
@Spacemonkey2084
what about your a priori assumption that "negative socialization" is the cause of personality traits? you yourself are making some huge, unjustified assumptions.
vbritsi 2 years ago
@Spacemonkey2084 No, you're a feminist in the sense that all men sufficiently indoctrinated in the anti-male mythos are, ostracized to the point where the only social utility you're seen to be able to provide is as lackey to the femifascists. How have they made you so blind to plain simply fkn reality?
Reclaim your testicles and renounce this idiocy.
thespacialone 1 year ago
"A single data point is not a trend." Pardon my French, but no shit.
When Argus used statistics on differential representation of women in math and science, I didn't take it to mean he's using it as absolute proof of biological differences. So he's not jumping to conclusions based on those statistics. Feminists are jumping to conclusions! It's idiotic to say these statistics prove sex discrimination. It's not even a reasonable conclusion. It's utter crap!
puyen58 2 years ago
"A single data point is not a trend." was a response to ConservativeAtheist, not ArgusEyes.
I didn't say sex discrimination. I would say it's mostly a matter of destructive socialization in the US. I know you're allergic to that word but we all know that people are trained into their programming to *some* degree. The only debate is where the line is.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Comment removed
puyen58 2 years ago
Comment removed
puyen58 2 years ago
Comment removed
puyen58 2 years ago
Now wait a minute, Spacedmonkey. You are a geneticist and a biochemist and you are championing "socialization"? Favoring nurture over nature! WTF?
You of all people ought to know better. As a biologist and geneticist, you should know the following:
-We are nothing but animals who happen to have a well evolved brain that makes us more intelligent than other animals.
-More fundamentally, we are nothing but blobs of atoms.
continued....
puyen58 2 years ago
...continued-
You should know that hormones (among other biomolecules) affect behavior. And that the homeostasis levels of hormones are controlled by genes. What the hell are they teaching you in your biochem classes anyway?
I suspect you're letting your personal political views influence your objectivity when it comes to the nature/nurture debate, rather than relying on the science. Stephen J. Gould was like that too.
So are you a commie or something?
puyen58 2 years ago
Let me help you with some objective scientific analysis of reality. I made a video called "A single data point is not a trend."
Now, allow me to mock your assumption that nature is all that's at play here;
"Clearly since women used to be a tiny minority of biology degrees 100 years ago they were bad at biology then! Since they now outnumber men in bio degrees clearly they have evolved very rapidly!"
Or possibly you don't actually understand evolution or biological systems.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Your example of women in biology classes then and now is a funny, but obviously gross oversimplification of the situation. a more meaningful question might be why are there nowadays more women in biology than physics?
are we talking about socialization, or are we talking about laws and rules that govern a society?
vbritsi 2 years ago
Well in defence of mystrymanolove I have to say that your mannerism in the video indicates that you dismiss chemical differences,it seems ,that's why I asked,
YogiToad 2 years ago
Are you saying that their are not chemical differences in women and men that affect their behaviours,which would be incorrect, if not then I stand corrected,One case in point is crying.On average a women cry 5x as much as men because stress toxins build in the body that affect the nerves,testosterone buffers the nerves,helping to render this toxin less hazardous,crying eliminates that toxin from the body,since women have less testosterone,hence they cry more.
YogiToad 2 years ago
So you are saying that there are no differences between gender and nothing drives their behavior in any way?
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
That's clearly not what I've said in this video. Explaining the mechanism by which patriarchal socialization is possible is not the same as claiming it's responsible for everything. It's not even similar.
That's all the hand holding I'm willing to give you on this argument.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Well I agree with that, feminists claim that "patriarchy" is the reason that women are "oppressed", that men are the reason why they are "held down". They blame genitals for controlling the world with words like "phallocentricism" when no genital has ever been in charge of anything. These are the kind of things that feminists say and they use this kind of "logic" to push their propaghanda. Feminists really don't know what they want and they all claim they want the same thing, thats a lie.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
Spacemonkey2084, I have just watched the video from Arguseyes and I can't belive that you are refering to the same video?
you seem to get the polar opposite 180 degree meaning from what he is saying? or you twist and grossly exaggerate the actual meaning that he portrays so that you have something to undermine
for example, show me please where Arguseyes states that Femenists are Nazis? if you watch his video again you will see why and with which relevance he uses the subject in this context
watchtheskies 2 years ago
Ah the Nazi issue, let me explain.
He uses a quote that includes Nazis, as well as Islamic terrorists and Stalin's communists. In this he is talking about how a sense of victimhood can be a great motivator to evil and connects this quote to feminists through the charge of perceived victimhood.
This line of argument is an emotional appeal. It would be just as correct to use it to explain why the civil rights movement in the US was wrong.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
While it may be an interesting philosophical conversation about psychological causes of evil it is not relevant here. To suggest that feminists will ever display the kind of evil that any of those groups showed it to be a conspiracy theorist. Feminists do not want to gas people, put them in mass graves, or wage global religious war.
ArgusEyes isn't a conspiracy theorist and isn't stupid. However he over reaches with the use of this quote.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
@Spacemonkey2084
you said arguseyes overreaches with the use of that quote from dennis praeger that a sense of victimhood is a great motivator to evil.
i guess you haven't read up on your feminism, ie catherine mckinnon and many others who want to use the power of the legislature to destroy men's lives and do crazy stuff like putting a tax on men or limiting their births. when these feminists say gender war, they mean it literally.
vbritsi 2 years ago
Here's something for you to play with... Men are superior to women trying to behave like men. Women are superior to men trying to behave like women. Knowing that not everyone values gender distinction, I leave the value judgments to you as I already have my own to contend with. The feminazi is not the same creature as the himinazi, but a rose by any other name is still a plant. Right brain...Left brain... There will always be differences in thought. Personally, I say "long live the difference".
ApostolicArbiter 2 years ago
You scare me. Tell us why sexism is bad. If you open a door for a man (it happens) are you being the alpha dominant male. You mate as a heterosexual with only women if your a man. But isn't that sexism? You are having sex based on only discrimination. Academics is nice but sometime we have to be part of the real world.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
It is important to understand that females have inherent biological value in terms of sexual selection where as the male is the variable from which to choose. The males is produced. Male value is derived from function and utility to the female and offspring. One can see from his physical form alone and female attraction to such utility. This does indeed extend beyond the physical. Male power and labor have and always will serve the female. Feminism denies this. We are meant for mutual need.
Red0660 2 years ago
Red0660
I deny your concept because everyone has different perceptions but I am not limited to anything. Utility is not something we are born with yet something that is learned.
I will agree however that most women look towards or have an attraction to power,function and utility but not all.
Laws of attraction can be heavily influenced based on society, culture and religion, just to name some outside factors.
Brilyantee 2 years ago
It is my contention that feminism coined the current definition of patriarchy as a division of power between the sexes which is grossly self serving to men where in actuality much if not all things men do are for the benefit of women. In all aspects of male power and labor it is his intention for a female and offspring to be the beneficiary. To in fact garner and serve the needs of a female. You tell me who is oppressed.
Red0660 2 years ago
Red 0660
Quote"To in fact garner and serve the needs of a female. You tell me who is oppressed. "
Both sides are opressed whether we like it or not. Example if their is a women you like but you don't share the same standards "good luck!"
To state the obvious unless you decide to change all your ideals or go against what you have learned, you have no chance.
Brilyantee 2 years ago
Comment removed
Red0660 2 years ago
I find that socialized differences are often if not entirely exemplifications or exaggerations of actual biological differences.
Red0660 2 years ago
Spacemonkey. I'm asking you seriously. How do homosexuals and Transexuals fit into this socialization theory of yours?
Orville9999 2 years ago
They fit into it very easily. Homosexuals and transsexuals to my knowledge don't show any signs of being less able to compete professionally in areas involving the hard sciences and higher math. They don't seem to suffer this kind of biological barrier any more than women do.
If you're asking about their sexual preference then I'd say there is very good evidence that it's biological. I like evidence. Socialization is not my theory, it's a concept that's widely accepted, including by ArgusEyes
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I'm asking about people who despite clearly being socialized with one Gender Identity (and all the traits associated with it.) choose that of the opposite gender instead.
If gender (note that I'm using the word gender and not sex) was a social construct this should not be happening.
Orville9999 2 years ago
QUOTE: "PORNOGRAPHY: THE SECRET HISTORY OF CIVILISATION is a six-part series, which tells for the first time on British television the history of pornography. This landmark series charts the changes in sexual imagery prompted by the advent of new technologies over thousands of years: from ancient times to print, photography, film, video and the Internet....
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
is that a Cambells Biology textbook in the background?
novalord2 2 years ago
LOL
Good eye. That's the shelf for all my old textbooks... because I actually do use them from time to time.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for a response from you, old chap ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
haha, i just finished using that book. I was wondering if it was of any use to a Bio Major.
novalord2 2 years ago
I think I've lent it to people for reference or just looked up random stuff like specifics of the cell cycle. Most of the stuff I've looked up is probably available in shorter form on the web.
The books to keep are the ones where they're specialized to the point that the information isn't free online.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Where did I imply that they are 'responsible?'
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
"You've godwin'd yourself"
Did you _completely_ miss the point or are you simply trying to avoid the argument about victimhood?
docdamag 2 years ago
also, a comment on "patriarchy" and male dominance.
I can't help but think of an old garfield comic:
nermal: strange relationship you and jon have here.
garfield: yep, jon feeds me, scratches my belly, strokes me and takes any care of me..
nermal: and what does he get of that???
garfield: he gets to call himself "master"
Orville9999 2 years ago
ArgusEyes has a British accent, I wouldn't argue with him.
Also he never said socialisation didn't matter, he said quite the opposite, that it did matter but that it wasn't the only thing that affected an individuals behaviour.
reignofhope 2 years ago
He pointed out the holes in your argument quite well. Check it out
foryoutohear 2 years ago
I like where Spacemonkey2084 is going with this. If gender roles and gender identity are socialized, maybe things like sexual orientation are too!
If that's the case, maybe there is something we can do to help "cure" gay people and make them behave the way society wants them to!
Thank you for opening my eye's SpaceMonkey!
Orville9999 2 years ago
Actually, biology does make a difference. There is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a matriarchal society anywhere on the earth at any point in history.
loqutor 2 years ago
I have seen Feminists in the past try and equate the Egyptians of the past with matriarchy.
I don't know if there is much evidence for this though.
java501 2 years ago
There isn't. We know almost nothing about how the common Egyptians lived. All we really know about is how Pharaoh and his priests lived, and even there, all we know is what they wanted us to know.
loqutor 2 years ago
Okay, the second and final point you made I'd like to touch on was when you said something about women NOT(?) wanting men to pull out chairs and be "chivalrous" with them (weird, I thought the ladies liked that...I hope you see where I'm going to take this). I though they LIKED being the damsel in distress right? This touches on what I said earlier about women wanting EVERYTHING "both ways at the SAME TIME". The female mind is the perfect example of a paradox. Like I said...schizophrenic.
ghostgate82 2 years ago
I'd like to finally touch on two key points you brought up in this video. The first being the "nonexistence" of an organized conspiracy of oppressive men. You are looking at it wrong. They DO exist, but their goal isn't to oppress women, it's to oppress EVERYONE they deem inferior to them (99% of the world population basically). One thing that they have done is break up the family in the late 50s and it has went downhill from there. Controlling the media is very helpful as well. (cont)
ghostgate82 2 years ago
Most people see these two hemispheres being connected as a good thing, but it actually quite counter productive in the realm of everyday life. It creates a sort of minor schizophrenia in the female brain. This is why it takes most women MUCH longer to make a decision about...anything. No matter if it's important or trivial, women seem to sit there and mentally weigh EVERY SINGLE trivial option, meanwhile the man has used simple deduction logic to make his mind up on the same decision. (cont)
ghostgate82 2 years ago
Wow, I don't even know where to begin picking this video apart. First and foremost the absolute MOST paramount thing EVERYONE must understand about women is this.........wait for it........THEY WANT EVERYTHING BOTH WAYS! If something, ANYTHING, is in their favor, they cling to it. If something is NOT in their favor (according to them), they want to get rid of it. I believe this to be caused by the tragic unseparated hemispheres of the female brain. (cont)
ghostgate82 2 years ago
should be vigilant for their effects without being censored by pejoratives such as "Godwin's law" being constantly thrown at us.
Another human trait is hatred of those who do not disagree. You obviously think that I am some sort of hateful individual as indicated by the little reference to "perhaps you will equate me with a Nazi sympathiser". I am not a demon, I just happen to disagree with you.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Like I said in my video. I can easily follow your argument. I can see how you're linking a mentality of victimization to bad acts.
My problem is that the two are so unrelated it's similarly valid to make comments on basic human nature and warn that both Nazi's and some random person are both human. It's an emotional appeal and I maintain it was inappropriately used. It may be philosophically interesting but I don't see it as an effective argument against feminism.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for you to respond to the private messages I sent ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I was reading a quote by another person and he mentioned the nazis in a list along with many other groups (terrorists, criminals). You picked up on nazis and basically insunated that I said feminists are nazis, that is incorrect.
I don't think you're being honest with yourself, you went through a list of nazi policies and contrasted it with feminists, you also saud "I don't see an equal sign here". You were clearly taking it too far.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
make the claim that I am calling feminist Nazis.
If there was an effect of human though that can lead to bad actions, then I think we should identify this so that we can avoid those bad actions again. If you see yourself as a victim of a group then actions against that group become more legitimate in your eyes, you lose any human relation to that group and they appear more demonic in your eyes this results in hatred and atrocity. These are basics of human evil an atrocity and we (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
mandated. Feminism has won, people are terrified of slighting women and whatever slights they do undergo are insignificant compared to the state mandated actual oppression of men. This is the unassailable argument which cannot be addressed. You need to watch my video "men are more oppressed than women" which lays out this case.
~5:35 "feminists are not Nazis"
I want you to go to my videos and watch a video I made called "Why I don't agree with the term 'feminazi'" and then try to (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I don't agree with Harmon.
As for people being afraid to slight women.. I will find some anecdotal court cases for you and also some domestic violence statistics suggesting that being slighted is the least of their worries.
I will also look at your video.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Perhaps, while you are at it, you will also look at the BROAD definition of domestic violence AND the FACT that men report Violence far less often than women. These points should open your eyes to how misleading these "statistics" can be. As they were designed to be.
foryoutohear 2 years ago
Well, as some say, there's three kinds of dishonesty:
Lies
Damned lies
and Statistics
Kikarok 2 years ago
I'm sorry, you're right. What was I thinking?
Lets rely on your emotional responses and some anecdotal stories. Carry on. Statistics and math have never done anyone any good.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Jeez, it was nothing more than a humorous anecdotal reply to foryoutohear's comment about statistics; get a grip.
Kikarok 2 years ago
"I don't agree with Harmon."
I believe you, because I think you are a good guy.
But what do you have to say about her views? Are they not inspired by feminism? And what does that say about feminism?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
better than they frequently do.
~3:57 "I've witnesses a lot of sexism in my life, I don't know what world you live in if you haven't"
Sexism is a two way street. I don't understand how you guys breeze past the Harriet Harman thing. This is a woman who says that she is for putting women into these positions because they are women. That is discrimination based upon sex and thus it is sexism by the book. Never mind what the reasoning is, it is sexist and it is governmentally (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
As promised, here I address some of the smaller remarks:
~0:51 "conspiracy of males out to get people"
I accept your case that most feminists don't think it's a shadowy cabal. I don't automatically want to think the worst of people so if you believe that and you are sure that BoundlessEyes believes that then I will accept that. But people write a lot of conspiratorial sounding stuff and I wish that they'd get a grip on it, tone down the hyperbole and explain their ideas a little (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
i would also read the how the brain works from the howstuffworks(.)com website.
java501 2 years ago
ArgusEyes has already distanced himself from those that refer to feminists as feminazi. He seriously dislikes this term.
You don't have any scientific evidence for socialization it can however be traced back to the 19th century when it was popular to disassociate humanity with the beast nature that is humanity. What one can only term as denial. It wasn't popular in the scientific community to think us (civillized society) as anything but humane and better than our human nature.
java501 2 years ago
I'm suprised that you as a biochemist you are supporting socialization theory. I would probably go as far as to say you are a poor excuse for a for a biochemist if you believe socialization theory.
I would point you in the direction of any online source that talks about neolithic women like this one:
hhhh(.)org/maia/neolithic.html
and then watch video OYfoGTIG7pY and x-ewvCNguug
to come to a better understanding of biology humans actions.
java501 2 years ago
100%! correct!
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
I have been saying just this very same thing for many years now but you are the first I have found that seems to get it.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.
They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.
When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
sausage4mash 2 years ago
This also fits my personal observations. I used to be a Mensa member and I can think of only one woman with whom I could have an in depth conversation at the same intellectual level (a proud mother of three as well as a legal councelor, by the way), whereas men with the same level as far easier to find. Even most educated women I know tend to be either very shallow or very ignorant.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe such disparity could be down to Environment, it seems more plausible that this is down to genetics, more research needed .
I could not find out if Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn's work is peer reviewed my guess is it would of been .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker You don't think this is a part of socialization, where women are taught to rely on looks and not intelligence?
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : Nope. The vast majority of women just have less affinity with technology than men much the same way the vast majority of men have less affinity with social interaction than women. This can be explained by the differences between the male and female brain and can be examplified by the fact that these differences are also reflected at top colleges (where men dominate eg. exact science and women dominate several of the the human sciences).
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker What is wrong with me biologically where I like technology and excel at programming and such normal "male" thinking that I often have males in my class asking my advice as to how a certain program be written? Is there a diagnosed biological disorder that I could possibly have, and what medication should I seek to correct my obvious neurological disorder?
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : Well, the only biological disorder that I know of that is linked to increased affinity with technology and mathematics is autism. Especially Asperger's Syndrome (a type of autism) is very common among IT geeks and in fact believe to have Asperger's Syndrome myself (I'm a programmer as well). In case you don't know : Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory is an Asperger's stereotype.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting you're abnormal. There's nothing wrong or abnormal about being a minority.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I don't however have asperger's, as for autism I can't honestly say whether or not I have it. I know that you are not saying that I personally am abnormal...but if you're going to argue biological reductionism, one would think that because I don't fall into the "normal" biological category that I am placed in, that there must be something wrong with me either biologically or neurologically that should be corrected in order to be "functional".
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : What makes you so sure you don't have Asperger's but maybe a different kind of autism? There isn't THAT big a difference...
Again, being a minority =/= abnormality. Most (if not all) human capabilities (eg. strength, IQ, EQ, ...) are statistically spread within specific groups (eg. genders, races, classes, ...) like a Bell Curve. This means that the vast majority is average compared to the rest of the group, but there's a small minority on either side of the spectrum.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I believe I am able to relate socially and don't find it's like communicating to an alien way of thinking. You seem to think that I am accusing you personally of being intolerant, I am not. I am saying that if biology is SOLELY responsible for our actions then those actions that go outside the biological norm should be treated, if you find this offensive then I would have to tell you that that is how I feel about biological reductionism, not you personally.
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : Most mental traits are a mixture of nature (genetics) and nurture (education & experience). It seems naive to claim that ANY skill is solely related to nature or solely related to nurture, however it seems pretty obvious to me that nature is the most important factor when it comes to intelligence and affinity to certain skills.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I agree that relying on any ONE is intellectually dishonest, but given that you think you may have asperger's would you not be intellectually dishonest in saying that nature is the most important in your opinion because you are at a disadvantage when it comes to connecting socially?
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : The combination of my Asperger's and my high IQ (137 according to the WAIS-III scale) puts me in an interesting position as it allows me to analyse human behavor in a more detached, more openminded and more rational fashion than most people. And of course, I always debate my findings with my best friends (a lesbian with Borderline Personality Disorder and a man who has a psychopathic father) and my girlfriend (a wheelchair-bound woman with a PhD in bio-engineering).
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I do have to admit I am a little jealous at the seeming "natural" ability one of asperger's has to be able to rationalize, but I also see it as an easy trap to fall into reductionism, that being said it's good to hear that you debate with others with differing points of view. I have had to train myself to be detached, but I also don't count out one's emotions as irrational just because they are emotions. Not all emotions are irrational, only unquestioned ones.
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compgeek: There are different kinds of emotions. Intuition (which includes intuitive empathy) is basically a set of emotions that trigger based on subconscious processing of observed reality and because the process is generated subconsciously it tends to be fairly irrational with most people. Other emotions are generated eg. by rational thought and therefore not irrational. It really depends on the kind of emotion you're talking about. By the way, Asperger's basically means having no intuition.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker So is subconscious completely unable to be rationalized, I understand that by the very nature subconscious is "unseen" but does that mean you can not question the manifestations of such behavior in a rational manner, and if that is so does that render psychology useless?
compugeek7221 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : You can compare subconscious processing with using a framework as a programmer. It's much easier and more efficient to work with than without using any framework, but you lose sight of the basic code that is under de hood. Many people have a lot of cognitive dissonance and subconscious processing ignores it (leading to irrational behavior) while rational analysis points it out (avoiding irrational behavior).
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@compugeek7221 : Psychology is useful for various things. Besides increasing our understanding of the human mind, it can also help people to recognise the cognitive dissonance within their thinking, to fill gaps of knowledge, etc. Psycho-analysis, however, is proven by qualified psychologists to be nothing but a pseudoscience and it should not be taken seriously at all.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
strawman video from the male suplicant . angus is saying that biology is a factor in the way men and women behave , feminism is based on the idea ,that it's all nurture .
today I was on facebook , a bunch of women where discusing thier dates , and discribing them as " IT " , nothing was said by any of thier male friends , can you Imagine what shit a man would get if he discribed a women as "IT",
wake up and stop the mysandry !
sausage4mash 2 years ago
I'm sorry. I have no idea where I lost you along the way.
I did not say there are no biological causes for psychological differences. I won't go any further into this, I'm tired of explaining it. Trying to pretend I'm saying that doesn't win you anything. I'd say "try again" but I hope you don't and save us both the trouble.
Who do I look like? I can't help but be curious now.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
You literally said there are no biological causes for abilities in maths or language, in spite of the evidence that shows the oposite and completely contradictory to common sense.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
He literally says nothing of the sort. Watch the video again and then quote him. You'll find yourself unable.
Critical thinking appeal much?
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Please correct me where you believe me to be wrong.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Watch the video again. It's clear that you're wrong.
I've wasted enough time on you. So has he.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
From where I'm sitting, you look like the picture you're trying to paint of ArgusEyes. Where did _he_ claim there are no social causes for behavioural differences?
docdamag 2 years ago
Ok Spacemonkey2084 I just checked and your Video response hasnt arrived?
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Sorry, after I posted that I went and tried attaching it directly. It seems to be linked now.
I don't know why but when I tried uploading it as a response it didn't work. Once I tried making it a response after it uploaded then it did. The whole system seems a little iffy.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
By the way, I sent you a PM where I explained that feminism was indeed developed as some sort of conspiracy against Western civilisation. You just make the (false) assumption that we KNOW this isn't true. If we really KNOW this isn't true, then why don't you back this up?
Feel free to respond to my PM and provide any arguments against the arguments provided in the lecture I linked to.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Ok.......
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
ownage
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
How old are you? I hope the answer is very young because otherwise you need to grow up honestly.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
I need to grow up because I believe that spacemonkey obliterated ArgusEyes through sound reasoning, and chose to display my beliefs regarding this in 6 characters that essentially convey this thought in internet-speak?
Sir, I've seen your plebian attempts at arguments in this comment section. Do you wish to awaken me and provoke your own demolition?
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
spacemonkey's ignorant ramblings by no means obliterated ArgusEyes's arguments. Where the hell did you get that nonsense from?
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
ArgusEyes' arguments were weak. They were primarily logical fallacies, and thus were not even deserving of such a respectful response as what they got.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Spacemonkey2084's nonsense is entirely based on pseudo-scientific nonsense and logical fallacies. I couldn't find any in ArgusEyes' arguments, but feel free to point them out.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Your comments are Vague bluster lacking any substance.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
LOL! You Net nerds are so adorable!
Ok listen bone head I dont care who you agreed with I was simply pointing out your Low-Class unintelligent term use. Kind of like when people use the term (Fucktard) which is primarily used by the type of people that are guests on the Jerry Springer Show and revealing their true character.
Now to continue your stupidity you threaten to come after me with your obviously brilliant mind I mean whats next You will talk to me in madeup Klingon?.....lol
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
you know, it's funny how you put a word that suggests intelligence (atheist) next to one that implies intellectual and moral retardation (conservative) in your username. I shall add to the gang-beating of you in this comment section. You have provoked it.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago 3
I am not sure what beating you are talking about we are agreeing on some issues and disagreeing on others.
Another Net Nerd trying to talk big.....lol
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Anyone who wasn't a liberal when he was young, has no heart. Anyone who didn't become a conservative growing old had no brain.
Liberalism is an ideology that appeals to naieve people who're guided mostly by their emotions, whereas any rational person inevitable comes to the conclusion that conservatism is the only way to run a healthy society.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.-John Stuart Mill
You really think that quoting people wins arguments?
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Did I ever imply it does?
Just crawl back in your little hole until you can come up with some real arguments.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
The pay gap between men and women is caused mostly by a difference in priorities between men and women. Men and women choose different careers because of different interests. For example, men are more inclined to take a job in science, engineering or mechanics whereas women are more inclined to take a job emphasising on interaction with other people like psychology, medicine or law.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
You've only observed that after they've spend years being socialised to have preferences so that doesn't demonstrate biological preference.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
That's bullshit. Male and female brains operate differently as a consequence of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Therefore we have different talents and different interests. Homosexua
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Homosexual men who behave more feminine also tend to have interests and talents more associated with women. Similarly, lesbians who behave more masculine tend to have interests and talents more associated with men. Often, these lesbians were raised just like any other girl and these homosexual men were raised like any other guy. The cause is likely hormonal.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Actually, I don't identify with my gender, and very specific circumstances contributed to that which had nothing to do with biology. I LEARNT not to identify with it.
What you're observing is the narrowness of gender roles taking effect. There is no mid-ground, so those of us seeking to escape our own gender mirror the other in the hopes it is a more respectable conventional stance than creating your own.
I'm speaking from personal experience.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
No it's not. I watched the video shortly after my reply and I couldn't find a single argument that even remotely undermines what I said. All he could come up with, is claims that the evidence is inconclusive (which it is not) and the claim that the fact that 5% or less of engineering and IT students are women is irrelevant because women are are now overrepresented in biology and underrepresented in the past (which is completely irrelevant since women WERE discriminated back then but NOT today).
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
No one said it isn't possible to deviate from one's biologically determined nature. Apparently that's what you did. I don't think it's a healthy thing to do so, though, but you'll probably find out later in life. Most people do quite a lot of stupid things in their twenties before they come to realise what's really important.
Anyway, just for the record... I'm most attracted to women who're anything but typical women mentally speaking. I find typical women to be quite annoying, actually.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
lol you totally missed the nazi connection dude.
shitheadfever 2 years ago
Give this video a chance, it might be an eye opener for you.
The user is "1menaregood1" And the video is called "men´s issues"
Just give it a try, it might open your eyes a little
XxOZONEMILITIAxX 2 years ago
Boysclub.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
You are totally missing the point. Because there ARE so many obvious differences between a woman and a man physically, biologically, then WHY is it so far fetched to believe that also the brain that causes actions will be different between males and females. MOST feminists today refuses to take this into consideration, and takes for granted that our actions are ALL based upon social constructions.
XxOZONEMILITIAxX 2 years ago
We develop from the same Zygote. Are we that different?
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Men and women are not developed from the same zygote. The extra X chromosome women have and the Y chromosome men have determine physical, hormonal and mental differences between men and women.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I am going to add you as a friend if that ok....?
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Boysclub.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Well your behavior is truly mature and not the actions of an Emotional Little Dingbat at all!
Dont you find it Ironic that it takes Spacemonkey2084 a Man to make a rational arguement that Women arent Irrational because the Female in the conversation is to Emotional and Irrational to do so herself?.....lol
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Did you even watch BoundlessEyes' videos? If you think that they were irrational, then that speaks less to her video and more to your prejudices.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Yes I did watch the one which I commented on and while I disagreed with her conclusions I didnt find it completely irrational although she became irrational and overly emotional in her comments in the threads toward me needlessly.
If you really want to take the time and effort to read through them you will see that and if you dont then that says more about your emotional stability than who is right or wrong in any of these discussions.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
I've discussed with her on one of her videos and she's shown to be extremely prejudiced against men, completely ignorant on history, etc. She also refused to continue our discussion when she was out of arguments. Typical irrational behavior...
If you consider her to be a rational individual, this speaks mostly to your own prejudices.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
A (DingBat) silly little comment and a prime example of why Males cant make themselves take you seriously.....
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Why wouldn't that be OK?!?
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Well I support Israel 100% and I am a Proud defender of Capitolism.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
I'm not sure where Israel and capitalism (Capitolism?) come in, but I don't see how you can defend an apartheid state like Israel that abuses numerous human rights on a daily basis, ignores several UN resolutions and can't even exist without billions of US donations. Capitalism is a system of exploitation that leads to greed, poor quality products, environmental disasters, etc. I'm not defending communism either, but rather suggest a third way aka solidarism.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Capitolism (thanks for the typo-misspelling correct....lol) is Economic Darwinism and works as well as it does because it promotes competition and forces companies to provide better products and services at cheap prices as well as drives drug companies to invent crucial medicines with money it wouldnt have for research if not for profits. As far as environmental thats everyone everywhere except in the Jungle.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
That's the theory. In reality, capitalism leads to monopolisation which in turn leads to the exploitation of millions by a handful of people. It also does not lead to quality, as quality isn't cost-effective and companies only care about cost-effectiveness in a capitalist society. And finally, it causes anti-social behavior and distrust among people.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Not true at all the way that these companies win the customers over is by providing the best quality for the best price and if the customer doesnt like the product or the service the punish that company by purchasing from a different company.
monopolies can not legally exist in the USA and when a company comes close to creating one the government stops them as they did with Microsoft.
I dont want my money to be taken forcibly to pay for others that will not work unless they cant work.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
The way companies win customers over is by providing more and better advertising than other companies. If the customer doesn't like the product, he often doesn't have a clue that there are better alternatives available because there usually don't have the funds for extensive ad campaigns. It's mostly large multi-nationals producing mediocre products that do.
Monopolies can't legally exist, but there are many ways to uphold a virtual monopoly without breaking that law.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Anyway, if you'd like to continue our discussion on capitalism, please do so via PM. This video deals with the topic of feminism and therefore isn't the right place to discuss on capitalism. Also, PMs don't have character limitations.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
"Capitolism ... is Economic Darwinism"
It's "capitalism". And the fact of the matter is that monopolies generally emerge naturally. Evolution causes more diversity, not less. Capitalism that does lead to diversity, in fact, is economic intelligent design, as it requires some sort of law from an intelligent designer (government) to prevent monopolies.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Continued:
Regarding the Israeli / Palestinian conflict I am decidedly against the side that straps bombs to their own children and before you claim they dont I have pictures proving they do.
Now thats not the only reason I side with Israel but that one fact is enough alone.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Those resisting German occupation during WW1 and WW2 are called heroes. Those Americans who resisted against British tyranny are called heroes. Those South-Africans who resisted against Apartheid are called heroes. Yet, those people fighting (very inhumane) Israeli occupation and its apartheid regime are called terrorists and defamed. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that? I too might strap a bomb to my chest if my people were treated the way Israel treats th Palestinians on their OWN BLOODY LAND.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I might agree with you to a certain point if they only strapped bombs to their own chest but what you obviously intentionally didnt address was my point that they strap bombs on their own children and I am not talking about teens I am talking about small children and I even offered you not strong evidence but irrefutable proof of this assertion and yet instead of addressing it head on you tried to weasel around it by slightly changing what I said which was an obvious attempt at a (Straw Man).
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
I've never heard of any credible claims that little children are strapped bombs onto their bodies. This seems like typical zionist propaganda.
Anyway, let's please discuss this topic via PM. This video is NOT the place for a discussion on either capitalism or Israel.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I agree lets focus on the discussion at hand but the one last thing I will say on the matter in this comment is if you want to see proof go to my page or ask me for the link in PM thanks.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Yes, thank-you, I'm not entirely stupid, I was referring to the clearly significant identical development of zygotes before the first signs of sexual development.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
There's a clearly significant identical development of zygotes between most mammals. The similarity between zygotes doesn't mean anything. You could just as well argue that chimps and humans are equal because they share 99% of their DNA.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
No.
The trouble is the complete lack of evidence that I've been presented with. Because over the past decades women have been consistently closing performance gaps in math and the hard sciences there is no reason to believe this trend will not continue. Current performance differences are weak evidence at best when we're still showing upward trends.
Of course there are biological differences but we don't know what they are. We don't know what differences in aptitudes exist yet.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago