Can I join? I've got enough relatives and friends telling me I need kids that I'm starting to believe it myself!I'm not particularly interested in breeding or heavy lifting. For the later, I'm still waiting on my Silver Centurion briefcase-armor.
Yeah, now if we could fight the War to Stop Relatives from Asking Us When We're Gonna Have a Kid (or Another Kid), then I'm all in. I'll be in the Calvary leading the charge on We Need You Childless People to "Volunteer" to Work Harder 'Cause Parents Need Time Off, and We're Too Cheap to Staff Up for It.
How would you prepare them? Do you have big enough oven anyway?
I think she'll be okay lifting things on her own.
Same fine lady, I'd happily both knit her a sweater AND make her a sammich.
I didn't realize it was a war. I feel...under dressed.
I feel over dressed.
My salad is over dressed.
They no longer need us for breeding, just the heavy lifting
Well, good news that we also don't need them for breeding, just [everything else].
Funny how hard it is to finish that sentence without being a sexist jerk. :p
Today's Oglaf comic is so appropriate (NSFW).
HA!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always hard to say how much of it(if any) is society.
It's very simple. If it's not the exactly the same way globally and historically, it's clearly not a purely genetically deterministic trait. Everything that's affected by environment is affected by society. That's not saying that without environmental input there would be a zero-state, of course.
A huge problem with the gender wars are confusing equality for sameness.
Yes. A huge problem is that people who want equality are treated as if they want sameness. And they've been accused of that since the 1800's. It's getting reeaaal tired.
Most who want gender equality generally want gendered expressions to be free to use or not use by everyone. Meanwhile, most opposed to it (either explicitly or implicitly) want women and men to be separate but pretty homogenous groups. I mean, it's usually (note usually, there are exceptions of course) not feminists that shout down men who aren't the "same" as other men or women that aren't the "same" as other women. And it's certainly not some queer-feminist gangs that run around beating guys who want to dress in pink.EDIT: Though of course also the expression "gender wars" is very problematic, and would only be relevant with some specific marxist-feminist analysis.
so on one hand giving them the same thing doesn't work.
This does not seem unreasonable. I'm critical of most claims of gender-based mental differences (and it's not like the scientific community has any real consensus), but if we assume there are notable genetical mental differences between the sexes/genders treating them exactly the same probably won't be a good idea. If one person is born with bad sight and another with bad hearing, giving both either glasses or hearing aids is a suboptimal solution.
However, society right now doesn't give hearing aids to the one with bad hearing nor glasses to the one with bad sight, if we are to believe the claims of genetical differences. Society's giving the one with bad sight a musical education and the one with bad hearing a telescope. It's claimed that boys are more aggressive and worse at empathy for example, for example - yet from their births, we care little to teach and train boys in emotion and empathy and aggression control - all that teaching and training is given to the girls.
So not only can we not know if it's even true that boys are genetically worse at empathy, if they are then society isn't aiding them in the ways that it should; and the people who usually promote the idea that the sexes and/or genders are genetically very different are usually the ones who support a continuation of this failure to aid people in what they have a hard time for; they're the ones saying "boys will be boys"; aka "boys are bad at showing feelings so let them be physically agressive" rather than "boys are bad at showing feelings so let's try to give them the aid they need to become fully empathic beings".
Or in this specific case, even if it's true that males are somehow more genetically disposed to be unable to feel self-worth without feeling directly needed, then society isn't helping - it's _at the very best standing idly by_ and, much more likely, making the issue _far larger_ than the genetical disposition.
As long as nobody invents a method of opening very stuck pickle jars men might still be safe.
In my opinion all this does is change the possibilities for homosexual couples to have kids without needing to adopt (at least in the case of lesbians). there will still be heterosexual couples having kids together out in the "Good Old Fashion Way", and while gay couples will still need some sort of medium to have kids all the other options are still available.
plus on the note of gender equality, by the standards of law both genders are equal, it's a cultural nuance that still causes some divisions to exist, but given time and education even these barriers will break down.
also in terms of feminism there are two viewpoints...
Equalist: Both gender are equal, and while there are differences both genders should have the same opportunities and respects as the other.
Amazonian: Women are better then men and should control everything as men are weak/dumb creatures who should either be used or thrown away.
While the second of the two me be a slight over-exaggeration there are still women out there like that. Ex.I went to an anime convention last spring and saw a presentation on the portrayal of women in Anime. the only anime the presenters felt was the best without any flaw was "Claymore" an anime consisting of cowardly men and women who constantly fight. Seriously I have seen anime in which women are portrayed well and both sides unleash and equal amount of whoop-A**.
plus on the note of gender equality, by the standards of law both genders are equal, it's a cultural nuance that still causes some divisions to exist, but given time and education even these barriers will break down.
Time, education, and moral guidance.
t's very simple. If it's not the exactly the same way globally and historically, it's clearly not a purely genetically deterministic trait.
Problem with that definition: things like eye and hair color are not the same globally, yet they are pretty much genetic.
Everything that's affected by environment is affected by society. That's not saying that without environmental input there would be a zero-state, of course.
I don't think you can combine environment and culture.
Yes. A huge problem is that people who want equality are treated as if they want sameness. And they've been accused of that since the 1800's. It's getting reeaaal tired.
You're doing it below.
Most who want gender equality generally want gendered expressions to be free to use or not use by everyone.
I'd push more towards anyone expressing themselves regardless of gender rather than everyone expressing themselves regardless of gender. Its an important but subtle difference. If one girl wants to play football and a boy is really into fashion design they should each be allowed to do that, but taking anything other than a 50 50 split as a sign of repression is imho, nuts.
Meanwhile, most opposed to it (either explicitly or implicitly) want women and men to be separate but pretty homogenous groups.
Ignoring the individual outliers in a population is bad, but so is ignoring that there are two well defined peaks on the bell curve.
EDIT: Though of course also the expression "gender wars" is very problematic, and would only be relevant with some specific marxist-feminist analysis.
If you have another term i'm listening. Until then I'll borrow the phrase from our resident communist pyromaniac goblin.
Quote:
so on one hand giving them the same thing doesn't work.
I'm critical of most claims of gender-based mental differences (and it's not like the scientific community has any real consensus)
Why critical? It seems to me that you're pushing epistemic nihilism on it at this point. We know testosterone causes aggression, we know that men have more testosterone, it really shouldn't be a surprise if males are more aggressive.
but if we assume
Conclude. VERY important difference.
- yet from their births, we care little to teach and train boys in emotion and empathy and aggression control - all that teaching and training is given to the girls.
How exactly does one train empathy?
And for aggression control i disagree. If you hit someone you get punished, that gets taught from an early age.
So not only can we not know if it's even true that boys are genetically worse at empathy, if they are then society isn't aiding them in the ways that it should. "boys are bad at showing feelings so let's try to give them the aid they need to become fully empathic beings".
And again, here you are pushing for sameness rather than equality.
If boys are generally less empathic than girls you're trying to treat that tendency as a defect to be overcome. You want to try to push boys to be more like girls: in short treating a boy like a problem to be fixed. This is one of the ways we wound up with an obscene overdiognosis of ADD.
You're treating being a boy like its a bad thing to be erradicated, like they're not even fully human beings. This is a problem, doubly so since you CAN"T erradicate biology in an individual. All you do is cause stress by holding up some unreachable goal and tsking at the persons inability to reach it.
Or in this specific case, even if it's true that males are somehow more genetically disposed to be unable to feel self-worth without feeling directly needed, then society isn't helping - it's _at the very best standing idly by_ and, much more likely, making the issue _far larger_ than the genetical disposition.
If its biological than anything you try to do will be useless, UNLESS you try to work with the tendency rather than against it.
"If you have another term i'm listening. Until then I'll borrow the phrase from our resident communist pyromaniac goblin. "
Hmm. That's not a phrase I use very often (if at all). As opposed, to, say, "class war" or "Goblins do it in the street!"
In general, I stick to my old-skool point: (most) women "need" men because they agree with Germaine Greer that female orgasms are more satisfying when there is a penis for the vagina to undulate around. Also, for some reason, they seem to like our more pronounced musculature, thicker facial hair, our straight (for some of us anyway) lines and bulges.
Men are sexy.
"If you have another term i'm listening. Until then I'll borrow the phrase from our resident communist pyromaniac goblin. "
Hmm. That's not a phrase I use very often (if at all). As opposed, to, say, "class war" or "Goblins do it in the street!"
In general, I stick to my old-skool point: (most) women "need" men because they agree with Germaine Greer that female orgasms are more satisfying when there is a penis for the vagina to undulate around. Also, for some reason, they seem to like our more pronounced musculature, thicker facial hair, our straight (for some of us anyway) lines and bulges.
Men are sexy.
I'd have to check my sources on this, but research seems to indicate that the orgasm is much more intense when the woman trusts her partner, and when they've had time to build a physical and emotional relationship. Failing that, if we need something to undulate around, there are always dildos.
As to a reason for the attraction to male musculature and hirsutism, a lot of that is factory-installed software, evolved over the last 4 - 5 my for the purpose of choosing a genetically fit father for one's offspring. No, the process of evolution isn't romantic, and everyone's parade gets rained on.
#It can't rain all the time#
Sex toys and marital aids are the shiznit, yo!.
But my experiences lead me to believe that, again, most women would rather have sex with warm flesh than cold plastic or metal.
As for evolution, it might not be romantic, but it also accounts for (most) male's attraction to ample breasts and curvy buttocks.
Women are sexy.
Sex toys and marital aids are the shiznit, yo!.
But my experiences lead me to believe that, again, most women would rather have sex with warm flesh than cold plastic or metal.
As for evolution, it might not be romantic, but it also accounts for (most) male's attraction to ample breasts and curvy buttocks.
Women are sexy.
Also quite true. And thank you ;D!
the woman trusts her partner, and when they've had time to build a physical and emotional relationship.
And the partner has some clue of what they are doing. Seriously guys, get a bloody manual and stop being useless, you are making us all look bad.
Being clueless is not an endearing feature.
I bring all da cluz.
the woman trusts her partner, and when they've had time to build a physical and emotional relationship.And the partner has some clue of what they are doing. Seriously guys, get a bloody manual and stop being useless, you are making us all look bad.
Being clueless is not an endearing feature.
Manuals are okay, but I'd suggest speaking to your partner.
As Germaine Greer said, if she's not helping you figure out how to get her off, she ain't liberated.
Sure, but do some homework, that way you ate ready to participate in serious conversation, not just paint by numbers.
[Reads aloud from manual]
"Insert Tab A into Slot B..."
Shiznit, I've been doing it wrong!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Reads aloud from manual]
"Insert Tab A into Slot B..."
Shiznit, I've been doing it wrong!
Aren't you holding the book upside down?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't you holding the book upside down?[Reads aloud from manual]
"Insert Tab A into Slot B..."
Shiznit, I've been doing it wrong!
I just had a sudden, insane image of a bunch of confused goblins standing in the middle of a street, clustered around an upside-down manual, with Germaine Greer trying to explain that no, they weren't supposed to try it while doing headstands.
And a pox upon Germaine for limiting their creativity!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bring da p0x3s.
It has pictures.
And diagrams.
What do you do if you end up not having used nut 43 and bolt 18C?
Apply gaffer tape.