01 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhSo answer the opposite, why would there be gender bias if what you say is true?
If a society treats everyone equally from the standpoint of assumption of equal value, regardless, will the differences between the two genders be minimized or more pronounced?
01 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhOk, I'll take door # 2. See you later oscillator. It doesn't seem you want a real discussion, only something that leads to your underlying agenda.
Answer the question or push the thumb down button and move on.
01 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseHow daft can one person be?
Ok, I'll take door # 2. See you later oscillator. It doesn't seem you want a real discussion, only something that leads to your underlying agenda.
The OP is a question.
Discuss it or move on.
01 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou have problems with inferences? I said check out the opposite so I was saying they should be equal in gender bias also.
How daft can one person be?
The OP is a question.
Discuss it or move on.
02 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhI've an idea that there is some evidence that it tends to decrease differences, but I can't give a reference.
If a society treats everyone equally from the standpoint of assumption of equal value, regardless, will the differences between the two genders be minimized or more pronounced?
02 Jun 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtThat's exactly the goal of those purposing it necessary to "disrupt (i.e., supplant) the patriarchy."
I've an idea that there is some evidence that it tends to decrease differences, but I can't give a reference.
Whatever the "patriarchy" is supposed to mean.
In addition to that ill-defined term is the equally fuzzy replacement product.
Ostensibly, we 'should' mandate that all have not only equal opportunity, but and more importantly, equal results.
Then we will know for sure it's all fair.
Funny thing happened on the way to the hanging, however.
In states which have reached the most egalitarian status wherein men and women are socialized into quasi-level playing fields... surprise!... the personality distinctions are more pronounced.
But we don't hear much of these results, do we?
Guess it didn't fit the hypothesis, so we ought to ignore that bit of science.
02 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat do you mean by 'personality distinctions'?
That's exactly the goal of those purposing it necessary to "disrupt (i.e., supplant) the patriarchy."
Whatever the "patriarchy" is supposed to mean.
In addition to that ill-defined term is the equally fuzzy replacement product.
Ostensibly, we 'should' mandate that all have not only equal opportunity, but and more importantly, equal results.
[b]Then[/ ...[text shortened]... results, do we?
Guess it didn't fit the hypothesis, so we ought to ignore that bit of science.
We know, for instance, in the old Soviet Union, where women were given equal opportunity to say become doctors, the problem ensued that the entire discipline of medicine was downgraded where to be a doctor was not on the previous pedestal and now in the Soviet empire to be a doctor was equated to be more like a letter carrier.
Seems to me that was directly related to the admission of large numbers of women in the medical corp.
Just like after the American civil war, where slavery was theoretically stopped, that did not stop the hatred of blacks which still goes on over 150 odd years later and will continue for a long time to come.
Reaching equality in legal terms is not the same thing as reaching equality in social terms.
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseDespite the antecdotal impressions you have, in countries which have purposely socialized an egalitarian state, personality distinctions between men and women are more pronounced, not less.
What do you mean by 'personality distinctions'?
We know, for instance, in the old Soviet Union, where women were given equal opportunity to say become doctors, the problem ensued that the entire discipline of medicine was downgraded where to be a doctor was not on the previous pedestal and now in the Soviet empire to be a doctor was equated to be more l ...[text shortened]...
Reaching equality in legal terms is not the same thing as reaching equality in social terms.
03 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhI just alluded to that in the Soviet story. And like I said, after the Civil war which mostly stopped slavery, it did ZERO to stop the suppression of blacks and Asians.
Despite the antecdotal impressions you have, in countries which have purposely socialized an egalitarian state, personality distinctions between men and women are more pronounced, not less.
So gender bias is deeply built in to our society and will take a long time to weed out if ever.
You aren't saying anything new here.
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseWho claimed it was new?
I just alluded to that in the Soviet story. And like I said, after the Civil war which mostly stopped slavery, it did ZERO to stop the suppression of blacks and Asians.
So gender bias is deeply built in to our society and will take a long time to weed out if ever.
You aren't saying anything new here.
The shocker is that it is not talked about.
If the results were as desired, i.e., more egalitarian equals less distinction, the SJW's would be all over it as proof positive that once every aspect of life was forced to be equal, men and women would have similar results.
Proof is in the pudding.
Shocker: men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.