you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

The problem lies where biology doesn't give a shit about the rules or feelings set up by the higher or lower thinking creatures goverened by its rules. It's primary focus is the continuation of biological processes that include reproduction and evolution.

Biology doesn't give a damn if women work. It only acknowledges that they're physiologically designed to be women, and physically weaker than men.

The sexes work in tandem, and compliment one another. As far as higher processes that require thought, such as how we think in terms of healing eachother through medicine, or working a job in advertising, or querying a pool of data-- none of these things are biologically essential, but they are important for a functioning society. We all have roles, and our abilities to learn, understand and apply information have evolved over time. This means that we can acknowledge that women have the capability of performing work, similarly to the male counterparts.

Is your problem more with the censorship promoted within some feminist communities or the process of women gaining rights along the same levels as men? You have a lot of posts that sometimes conflict on this, or at least that's my personal interpretation.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Oh ho ho, now that is evolutionary psychology, another discredited MRA myth. It's surprising how many MRAs are showing up in these comments with their bankrupt ideas that were proven false long ago.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Why is it considered an MRA myth? I don't understand why that would be associated with MRAs specifically.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Oh, OK. Evo-psych started well enough, but MRAs started using it to justify women's and men's roles in society, arguing for the usual bullshit that they spew. Shortly thereafter an avalanche of scholarship decisively refuted and then buried the concept. It's one of those things where mentioning it is enough to kill your academic career now. I'd advise staying far away from it, it's in the same realm as "13% of the people commit 50% of the crimes" bullshit.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So what were the funding sources for the majority of scholarly articles? Was there any bias or politics based agenda?

What do those scholarly sources have to do with refuting physiology itself and physical abilities between sexes?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

RACIST, SEXIST, ANTI-GAY

MRA, GO AWAY!

[–]SargentBlack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

lgbt is a disease of the spirit for which there is no vaccine available. oh my gawd, that is why they want to vaccinate us. they want to turn us all into fags.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If you sniff carb cleaner then it will go away