I've had no luck getting a peaceful analysis and critique of feminist theory thread going on Veeky Forums unfortunately...

I've had no luck getting a peaceful analysis and critique of feminist theory thread going on Veeky Forums unfortunately. Perhaps, I will have a bit more success here(though still doubtful)? I wanted to focus on the idea of slut shaming that I believe many feminists sometimes approach incorrectly. pic somewhat related
The focus shouldn't be on how the number of partners a woman has is always scrutinized more than a man's. This is silly and misses the point that anyone, man or woman, who has slept with a number of partners far advanced in the double digits before their 20th birthday is considered "sloppy." Perhaps not the same exact way, but still sloppy. Also men have always been referred as perverts or perpetrators of debauchery for too much sexual inclination.

The problem lies in how the spectrum of female sexuality is much more limited than male sexuality. Feminists have touched upon this with the "virgin/whore dichotomy" which I kind of agree with as it relates to the limited spectrum of female sexuality.
It's rooted to this day, in the idea that females must be free from unchaste thoughts or suggestion, not necessarily sexual activity, though that too is important. This easily moves a girl from virgin to whore on the limited spectrum in one's mind whether or not she has no, few, or many sexual partners.
It's why females with no sexual partners who masturbate are still somehow thought as by some as slutty and why many teenage girls and even women(I know I never have) do not partake in such. And if they do it is kind of a shock. Meanwhile, for boys this action is inclined to be seen as more natural as they are sexually frustrated or even "lonely virgins" who "can't get any sex otherwise. Despite all the Catholic churches effort to come down on the practice, no one to this day, really gives a shit that boys may sometimes masturbate. Many people still kind of give a shit if girls do.

This also manifests itself in how men and women think about sex. Girls have always been taught to fixate on the more romantic side of love and guys allowed to fixate on the more sexual side. In extremes, this resulted in romance literally being a stand in for "sex" in most girls' minds. Whether consciously or unconsciously. Not the case at all for boys since it is not and hardly has been in history(barring Victorian era) taboo for them to speak of it and their interests, even blatantly.
In reality, the average man or woman likely thinks about sex the same amount considering they are of average intellectual ability.
Finally, there is what I believe is essentialization of each gender by culture: that is, a man's appearance/ presence can suggest anything mainly what he can do and a women's, what she is and what can be done to her.
I know it seems that feminists focus on sex and their vaginas a lot, but in some ways, I can't really blame them. It seems men were the ones who started the obsession as a means of control and monopoly of power, even as a way to exclude.

Other urls found in this thread:

abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1107656)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080531/
stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html.
lmgtfy.com/?q=men and woman empathy difference
lmgtfy.com/?q=men and woman brain difference
lmgtfy.com/?q=difference between male and female thinking process
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

fuck off idiot

I don't mean to shit on the male gender with the last sentence btw. It was never all men and women were obviously socialized to also socialize their daughters(and sons) this way. Just giving some perspective.

btw, If it means anything to the inevitable /pol/ invasion, part of my idea came after watching an "analysis" of Frozen by Stephen Molyneux. It was mostly biased as expected but not completely without truth.

>I know I never have
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

Other than that, what was the point of this thread? What is your question?

nice, you haven't even read the post and you're hailing insults. If you did, you would know I disagree with pic related's statements.
The number of partners a human has had in their life time is not completely useless in empirically determining whether or not said person is capable of holding a long term relationship(mainly in marriage) if that is what one desires. People who vehemently deny this i feel are being a bit disingenuous, including feminists

I wanted to have a discussion, basically. If you disagree with the absurdity of double standards and why or why not?
Telling from your response, it seems like you didn't read the post critically and you disagree with my points telling from your response. What part of my stance specifically? Unless you're simply excited at the possibility of me being a female on Veeky Forums

bump for options(backed by facts) and critiques.

I honestly didn't find anything particularly disagreeable. That's why I asked what the point of this was.
I didn't know females masturbating/having lewd thoughts was considered more vulgar than males doing so, but I'll take your word for it since it is not of great importance to me.

On average, it is. Many teenage girls from other cultures wouldn't even think of it either. No, I don't just mean Islam. I was explaining all this in the context of slut shaming.
Sorry, for not starting the question. I was on a word count limit, probably should have just split in two parts to make it more complete. Does a thread need to end with a question to provoke discussion though?
Also, if you disagree with generalizing of current feminist though on the subject in the beginning too also feel free to say why.

Fuck off. Veeky Forums is a Catholic board. You should be a Virgin until marriage, whore.

>on average it is
Who finds it more vulgar?
Also next time don't publish war and peace just phrase the question and make it succinct.

It's more like other men sharing a cereal bowl with the same spoon. Women ought to stay pure.

>Food analogy
Let's make a bit more equal
30 Dudes dipped their dicks in a bowl of cereal, would you take a spoonful?

im not going to read all that lol

""""""""""""""""""""""""theory"""""""""""""""""""""""""

Men and women. More males but still the bias is there.
Do you mean culture wise?
I made it long for the purpose of explaining my thought process and anticipating objections. Perhaps not necessary on a Mongolian cartoon imaginary forum but I hate repeating myself.

Are you and all your male friends ready to commit to this ideal?
Also no masturbating =') You should be ashamed for visiting a site with such a wide availability of pornographic material btw.

>It's why females with no sexual partners who masturbate are still somehow thought as by some as slutty and why many teenage girls and even women(I know I never have) do not partake in such. And if they do it is kind of a shock. Meanwhile, for boys this action is inclined to be seen as more natural as they are sexually frustrated or even "lonely virgins" who "can't get any sex otherwise. Despite all the Catholic churches effort to come down on the practice, no one to this day, really gives a shit that boys may sometimes masturbate. Many people still kind of give a shit if girls do.
You're completely wrong and this is silly. You're not a man, you're talking out of your ass. This is just anecdotes, I want statistical evidence. I as a man have almost never heard much against females masturbating, and, having grown up with Catholic parents and attending Sunday school, did receive teachings that porn, indulging in lustful thoughts, and masturbation was bad --- this said without reference to gender. Again, however, this is merely an anecdote, so either bring up statistics or bust.

>This also manifests itself in how men and women think about sex. Girls have always been taught to fixate on the more romantic side of love and guys allowed to fixate on the more sexual side. In extremes, this resulted in romance literally being a stand in for "sex" in most girls' minds. Whether consciously or unconsciously. Not the case at all for boys since it is not and hardly has been in history(barring Victorian era) taboo for them to speak of it and their interests, even blatantly.
We weren't "taught" it, the nature of man and woman's sexuality is fundamentally different. Men biologically are wired to get much more horny than women do if they go for a while without ejaculating/orgasm. If men don't ejaculate/orgasm for a while, the semen builds up in their testicles and some of the chemicals in the semen, according testosterone, get reincorporated into the bloodstream and have effects on the mind. This typically may lead to greater feelings of aggression, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and, to put it as simply as possible, greater horniness. It's an almost impersonal lust that DEMANDS to be satisfied, regardless of emotion or not.

Women do not have the same effect. I find this is often something women don't understand, how men can have merely physical lust separated from emotions, read this abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 and this in particular from where she goes to a strip club:

> "I really ran smack up against the difference between male and female sexuality. It's that female sexuality is mental. ... For a man, it's an urge," she said.

>"At its core, it's a bodily function. It's a necessity. It's such a powerful drive and I think because we [women] don't have testosterone in our systems, we don't understand how hard it is," she said.

(to be cont. in next post)

don't women receive psychological damage for having so much sex with different people?

i'm really not educated on this subject but a good way to find an argument for or against something is to look at the effects on someone psyche or health... is a women having a lot of sex with different men bettering them in anyway? how about men?

He wasn't just referring to dudes...but also woman(mostly religious) who may have the same objections. Funny you again focus on women without considering that a man who is impure will also destroy a monogamous relationship.
I suppose you will use the lame excuse that "it's easier" for woman to get sexual fulfillment with the opposite gender without masturbation than men. But then that would now be an example of bitterness and plain misogyny at this point. Men were jealous that women on average have an easier time getting laid, so they make such rules to make it even or out of spite?

Anyway it is not so simple, especially not with the culture we have in place. An attractive man will not waste his time pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day. Ugly females still have no choice but to aim for ugly males...provided they are not completely autistic/ socially retarded. In that case, she too would have to be so.

The text in the OP was trite and it dragged for ages. I felt assaulted because of the high level of demagoguery in the assumptions. The OP fails to recognize the societal shift that is currently underway. Families as we know them, and society at large, will cease to exist when critical mass of superwhores is achieved. 10 men - maybe. 20 men - perhaps. What man however wants some diseased whore that has been with 200 men or even 500. How sustainable is that from a medical point of view. Once we get a new strain of venereal disease that is not treatable with medication, then the house of cards will collapse. HIV and Hepatitis may already be viable candidates awaiting critical mass. The OP seems to be looking for excuses for what is sure to be the demise of society as we know it. There was no question at the end to direct the conversation. The OP failed miserably. If this were treated seriously then it would actually be one of the better discussions on Veeky Forums.

Women don't get this literal build-up of chemicals in their bodies when they go without sex long enough which screams at them and their minds "HAVE SEX HAVE SEX LOOK AT THIS PERSON LOOK HOW HOT THEY ARE YOU'RE HORNY TIME TO ORGASM" et cetera. Trust me, when I go about a week or so without jacking off/orgasming at all, my standards will become much lower, I will get horny looking at women I'd probably not think are that hot right after ejaculating, it's literally biological. I will go out and get attracted at almost any woman I see (not literally --- not 10 year olds and 90 year olds, but within reasonable limits).

>Finally, there is what I believe is essentialization of each gender by culture: that is, a man's appearance/ presence can suggest anything mainly what he can do and a women's, what she is and what can be done to her.
You need some specific examples and/or statistics, you're not being very concrete so I can't countenance.

>I know it seems that feminists focus on sex and their vaginas a lot, but in some ways, I can't really blame them. It seems men were the ones who started the obsession as a means of control and monopoly of power, even as a way to exclude.
You mean men started the obsession with what? With their own sexuality? Please clarify. If it is with their own sexuality, again, this goes back to literal biology.

>The problem lies in how the spectrum of female sexuality is much more limited than male sexuality. Feminists have touched upon this with the "virgin/whore dichotomy" which I kind of agree with as it relates to the limited spectrum of female sexuality.
It's rooted to this day, in the idea that females must be free from unchaste thoughts or suggestion, not necessarily sexual activity, though that too is important. This easily moves a girl from virgin to whore on the limited spectrum in one's mind whether or not she has no, few, or many sexual partners.
In my opinion, this also goes back to biology. A woman, if she gets pregnant, is pretty much "out" for 9 months, sexually inviable. A man, however, can still impregnate as many women as he wants during this time. A man can have sex without as much repercussions for himself, a woman, however, had to be, biologically/evolutionarily speaking, careful who she chooses to have sex with because that's a serious commitment. She's going to bear a kid for 9 months and will bring this kid with half the genes of her partner into the world. (This, incidentally, is also why polygyny -- multiple wives to one husband -- is common to many primitive tribes and part of the Muslim tradition; it's biologically the most fitting model, and monogamy is an artificial construct created by Christianity which just leads to a lot of cuckoldry and cheating). (to be cont.)

>You should be ashamed for visiting a site with such a wide availability of pornographic material btw
Are you attempting to hold all of us accountable for the porn spamming that is done here?

I find that regardless of gender, the root cause of excessive promiscuity is usually some childhood trauma that gets manifested fixation on sex or going into porn. Not even joking. I knows guys who admitted to being diddle by their baby sitters...One admitted to having 60 partners. less just say he hasn't even reach his 25 year. They also have their view of themselves in response to the opposite gender warped/clouded.The extent of their relationship only being sex. It's actually kind of sad...

Outside of that, in terms of long term effects, this not only puts one at risk of developing an STI but it is usually more difficult for these people to ever imagine themselves in anything but an open relationship. And if they do want it, it may fail. That's why I don't totally agree with pic related in OP.

This is thus something like the "gatekeeper model" of female sexuality, where women are the "gatekeepers" of sex who decide what men are worthy to have children with them. They stand at the gate of reproductive fitness, only choosing the most worthy men to have sex with them. With the advent/great spread of modern easily accessible contraception, this isn't necessarily true anymore, but, again, biologically we didn't evolve with such easy and widespread access to contraception, so literally engrained into our genes is this idea that women have to choose the most fit men to sleep with, only have to have sex with the most worthy men.

In this idea, women actually determine the worth of men by deciding who to have sex with. So this idea, funnily enough, actually EMPOWERS women, and lowers men. Thus, men see promiscuous women as unlikable because, deeply and biologically, we feel that they are giving sex to unworthy men, being stupid, and lowering the species. The woman is going against biological imperatives to only choose the most worthy men --- men deep down feel they are validated when women want to have sex with them. So a woman who has sex with lots of people is a woman who is irresponsible and gives high valuation to any man, thus cheapening her judgment.

After all this, I'd like to say that I don't necessarily support this since now we're not living in days when getting sex = getting pregnant, I'm just explaining the reasons why women having a lot of sex is looked down upon. Again, if you've read this far, I don't mean that it HAS to be like this anymore, just that we have a certain psychology from at least tens of thousands of years where women are supposed to be careful who they have sex with since it means they'll have to give birth. This deeply engrained belief in our psychology won't be changed by about 50 or 100 years or so of easier access to contraception. Our advancements are going beyond our biology/psychological evolution.

Oh yeah, besides that, there's , and also the idea that, if a woman has had many sexual partners, it's unlikely that you'll be the last one -- that is, it's very likely she'll move on to another man since she's had so many partners before you.

Besides that, as I explained in , women have a DEFINITE advantage in getting to have sex because of the extreme physical horniness of men and almost NEED for orgasm, whereas women do not have the same physical need. Thus, a woman who has a lot of sex is seen as much more hedonistic and corrupted (she doesn't have the same deeply engrained need for sex, can refrain from it -- probably biologically beneficial because they have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth, so such a strong libido would not be that healthy for them), whereas men have much stronger libidoes, so them satisfying it more is seen as more of a need for them, something they can even be manipulated by.

I am OP, you idiot.
Again, no one is saying multiple partners is ideal for everyone or perhaps anyone. Lurk more. We are talking about systematic sexism and misogyny towards women that goes way beyond how many partners they have or don't. They may not have any at all. Men and women are both sexual beings. It's a balance of that aspect of humanity for both of them that is important. Yes women are people too if you don't agree then show me data to confirm this or otherwise fuck off.

yes. A good Christian boy shouldn't be on this site at all. Lest you are not much better than a Christian girl who thinks about sex =') Now repent.

If you are still here, can you respond to , all of which were written by me?

To clarify, I think is the biological reason we're inclined to dislike promiscuous women, but I don't think evo-psych necessarily needs to determine our psyche anymore, we can consciously try to change that. , however, is more why I think it is slightly more acceptable for a man to have more partners than for a woman too. Again, the nature of sexual desire is fundamentally, biologically different in men and women -- in men, it is a need coming from the build-up of testosterone which affects their whole body and psyche, in women, it is not; they can refrain from having sex without the literal suffering a man who doesn't orgasm for a while has. Thus, again, a man who has a lot of partners is more fulfilling a need of his, whereas a woman who has a lot of partners is cynically fulfilling a desire for pleasure she doesn't need to fulfill as urgently as a man does, and is cheapening sex by not needing to have it as much as a man does but having it a lot anyway just for fun. Also, again, a woman can get laid easier because men are biologically more predisposed to suffer when they get hornier and be uncontrollably lustful for a woman, whereas, for a woman, the desire is more in her control.

>(((feminist)))
>(((theory)))
there's all the analysis you need

If you think a female peacock and her friends ever gave a shit about whether she slept with best male peacock out of anything else but survival, you sir may be an idiot.
I get you being all "go chastity" because you're christian but do not bring biology into this. If you're christian, you believe humans are above all other animals, Perhaps even that they are not animals.
Biology and human potential over the millennia has clearly shown that humans have the ability to literally dictate how they should live by controlling their physical environment. We dont even need to have 10 kids anymore like we used to because off all the technological advancements that made childhood morality and childbirth safe. Unlike a peacock, we can plan, work in groups, and make our shelter AND food. We can do it in days now.

As for your other more scientific point, again, I don't agree that necessitates this image of woman and that culturally developed and if it did at one point, considering our advancements in mind and technology, we should be above such things. For the most part, in many case it was just irrational fear mongering.
Also see

>systematic sexism and misogyny towards women
The fifties are over. There are serious social issues afoot and you seem stuck on winning battles that you already won long ago. If you really feel the need to dismantle western civilization then find new ground. This aspect is already in free fall.

>who masturbate are still somehow thought as by some as slutty and why many teenage girls and even women(I know I never have) do not partake in such.
Hahaha what

Are you a Christian?

>because you're christian
I'm not nominally Christian of any church, my parents were Christian and sent me to Catholic school as a kid. I'm undeclared of any religion. I don't believe humans are above all other animals, that is what I'm saying --- you're criticizing people for having psychologically viewpoints which they're engrained to have. So it's hard to blame them. i clarified this a bit in . I think, evolutionarily, we're engrained to be suspect of promiscuous women, so, unless you consider this and bring this into the open, you're forgetting human biology.

To make it clear, I am saying people ARE animals, and it would be nice if they acted better than animals, but you ask a lot when you ask them not to ask like animals, more than you expect. You're saying "Why do people think this?" and I'm saying "They think this because of biological reasons, and they may not be entirely right to because such biological reasons no longer apply. But you should have sympathy for the unconscious biological factors, the thousands of years of evolution that make people think like this."

People are machines. It'd be nice to make them more conscious, but before you can make them more conscious, you have to consider their mechanicality and, instead of being personally affronted by it, realize they don't really choose to/know why they have these opinions.

As for , I am very confused by it and wish you could clarify. I think biologically women have an easier time for sex --- a man gets hormonally, biologically extremely lustful and can't really turn it off; a woman does not have this physical, powerful engrained lust. Thus, she can more choose to have or not to have sex, but men don't have as much of a choice -- they are, in this regard, more unconscious than women and more slaves of their biology.

>An attractive man will not waste his time pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day. Ugly females still have no choice but to aim for ugly males...provided they are not completely autistic/ socially retarded. In that case, she too would have to be so.
this makes no sense, what does it have to do with this? Do you mean an UNattractive man will not waste his tame pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day? If you mean an attractive man, why SHOULD he waste his time pursuing ugly females; and ugly females have no choice but to aim for ugly males --- in this case, what is wrong with this?

All the data I found on masturbation says this:
>Across age groups, more males (73.8%) reported masturbation than females (48.1%). Among males, masturbation occurrence increased with age: at age 14 years, 62.6% of males reported at least 1 prior occurrence, whereas 80% of 17-year-old males reported ever having masturbated. Recent masturbation also increased with age in males: 67.6% of 17-year-olds reported masturbation in the past month, compared with 42.9% of 14-year-olds. In females, prior masturbation increased with age (58% at age 17 years compared with 43.3% at age 14 years), but recent masturbation did not. Masturbation was associated with numerous partnered sexual behaviors in both males and females. In males, masturbation was associated with condom use, but in females it was not.

(jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1107656)

The difference between the female and male percentage of masturbation doesn't seem that big considering everything.

>The difference between the female and male percentage of masturbation doesn't seem that big considering everything.
Yes it does. 73% to 48% across age groups is pretty big of a difference. Men are biologically more engrained to be horny, as I have explained. Most, if they don't masturbate, begin to get very uncomfortable. Women don't. The ~20% of men who claim not to masturbate were probably too embarrassed to say so, religious and/or in denial of their urges, and/or hormonally off somehow.

As for male obsession, I was talking about them being the ones obsessed with sex and females vaginas. I wasn't necessarily bashing all men or men at all for this obsession. More so the fact that it turned(by some men) into a vehicle of control. My point in saying that was strictly to explain the only reason why it seems like feminist theory often fixates on sex and vaginas however, They are analyzing it to understand everything I just said.

Btw, you are now aware that women can have sex during pregnancy.
And not to say all women will do this; we don't live in this type of environment where women are dependent on men as much anymore, but there is evidence that females may prefer sleeping with different partners in some points of their cycle too. I will look for this study but no doubt someone as obsessed with evolutionary psych like you has already heard of it. So it really doesn't matter.
Men, women we have sexual urges, none is more "correct or incorrect" than the other. It just is. Besides, you're entire argument depends on the idea that a patrilineal society, where chastity would be needed more in women for it to be functional, is the only way to ever live. Women can inherit and get their own jobs. It's not needed for only women to say at home with their 3 kids anymore(one can make an argument that for the most part it never really was) who will almost certainly all survive to adulthood thanks to modern medicine,so you dont even need more than that anymore. Not saying people should cheat in a marriage as it is selfish to the kids and what not, but really, this entire fixation on anger to the woman is a real problem.

In the context of their own damn sexuality obviously. I wasn't talking about voting or work place stuff though that is kind of another societal issue all together.

Capitalism is the cause of dismantled western civilization. Complete Automation is inevitable and soon workers will be nothing but literal cogs. It's also the reason why women could work on the scale they do now anyway so quit blaming feminism. It only came up as a reaction to obvious hypocrisy and absurdity. Get used to the idea of doing things for free like mods on here. It will soon be a reality unless you have a degree in computer or robotics engineering.

I meant that the difference could be explained with the fact that for males masturbating is almost mandatory, like you said, so it's safe to assume masturbating for females isn't that big of a taboo like OP is claiming.

>As for male obsession, I was talking about them being the ones obsessed with sex and females vaginas. I wasn't necessarily bashing all men or men at all for this obsession. More so the fact that it turned(by some men) into a vehicle of control. My point in saying that was strictly to explain the only reason why it seems like feminist theory often fixates on sex and vaginas however, They are analyzing it to understand everything I just said.
OK, men may be more obsessed with female sexuality, but, again, I think this is due to biological reasons where sex is more of an imperative for men and, in a deep way, sex-obsession/the capacity for it is more engrained in them. I think we view feminists focusing on sex and their vaginas a lot as vain, as an affectation, because there's no real imperative they have to. It just seems like something they do to bolster their vanity and sense of power.

>Btw, you are now aware that women can have sex during pregnancy.
Obviously possible --- I mean, their vagina doesn't get sealed shut and hormones determining sexual attraction don't magically disappear -- but i'm pretty certain it's not super common.

>but there is evidence that females may prefer sleeping with different partners in some points of their cycle too. I will look for this study but no doubt someone as obsessed with evolutionary psych like you has already heard of it.
Interesting, I never heard of it however.

>Men, women we have sexual urges, none is more "correct or incorrect" than the other. It just is. Besides, you're entire argument depends on the idea that a patrilineal society, where chastity would be needed more in women for it to be functional, is the only way to ever live
I'm not saying it's the only way to live, I'm saying we're biologically and psychologically predisposed to it. So when you try to mess around with this, you poke on people's mechanical/animal parts, and this may lead to discomfort, unsatisfaction, emotional and mental disturbances without people knowing why. So you're trying to make people live and think in a certain way which may seem more rational and good, but, biologically, we're not engrained to live and think in these ways. So, paradoxically, it may lead to greater unhappiness.

Think of the greater comforts of modern civilization. You know what it is, I don't have to explain it to you --- you probably breathe it in everyday, the freedom affluent people have from violence, temperature disturbances, hunger, etc. While this seems more rational and happy, paradoxically, more "developed" civilizations have a lot of mental illness and seemingly meaningless suffering. You'd think, "You have access to food, to entertainment, to live freer from the threat of death and many diseases --- why aren't you happy!" However, biologically, we may be predisposed to live in different ways (to be cont.)

>In the context of their own damn sexuality obviously.
Women are free to become whores. Is your point to convince us to respect them for this decision?

So, paradoxically, all this technology and advancement may seem more rational, more benevolent, and more enlightened, but actually making us unhappier because we're biologically/psychologically not capable of adapting to it.

Similarly, feminism seems a rational and enlightened idea, but we biologically and psychologically may not be capable of adapting to it. It may paradoxically lead to greater unhappiness and social tension! You have to learn to divide people into 2 --- one part is the mechanism (all that's mechanical in them, the thousands of years of evolution), the other is reason/consciousness. You think people are more conscious than they are, that they can just triumph over their biology/physicality. But they're not so conscious as you think. So spreading feminism, in contradiction to our inherent biologies/psychologies, may just be causing suffering without us even understanding where this suffering comes from.

Something I haven't mentioned throughout all this and that i think neither of us have touched on, and which is a bit unrelated to the topics at hand but still important, is that biological and psychological studies shows hat women are more predisposed to be emotional, and men to be more logical/rational. I am not saying men are thus "better" than women because of this --- emotion is important, just as reason is --- but there are engrained psychological differences between men and women, which may, again, have to be considered when we think of how men and women should act to reach the greatest happiness for all. Women are psychologically/biologically more predisposed to stronger empathy, and to more agreeableness (psychological agreeableness = agreeing with others and giving them way even if you shouldn't; as opposed to assertiveness). Women are, biologically and psychologically, fundamentally more inclined to be passive than men.

Yes, a woman can be active. A man can be passive. There are variations. But if we try to tinker around with this stuff, we may, again, make people unhappy on a deep, fundamental level, and we may not be biologically and psychologically ready to tinker with gender roles so much.

Ah, OK, understood. Thanks for the clarification and bringing in some statistics for support of what I'm saying.

less than 50% is compared greater is a pretty stark difference.
Either way notice the difference in teens. That was kind of my point.
It lowers as women grow gradually and this is still different within different cultures as well.
I will admit that this is evidence that it is slowly changing with new generations but this bias and discomfort admitting it definitely existed when I was growing up.

Again, you miss the entire point of the argument.
What is a whore? One who sleeps with a multitude partners. I did not talk about anyone sleeping with multiple partners necessarily being a good ting in my entire post. That's how I know you're an idiot and didn't ready anything.
Now the fact that you used the word whore in reference to women only despite no one talking about sleeping with multiple partners shows that number of partners is irrelevant for the word's use and your(and our society's) perception of women and their sexuality as humans.

Oh, also, continuing in that vein a little, something a lot of modern media/feminism seems to ignore is that new neuroimaging techniques have shown women and men have different brain structures and are thus predisposed to experience reality, to think and to feel in different ways. So another issue with feminism is that we may say, "Yes, women can be just as rational as men, I'm a woman and I can be as rational as a man!" but, without really being aware of it, the woman is thinking in more holistic, intuitive, and emotional ways. These differences in male and female ways of perceiving reality seem to be biological, not just cultures --- and I think it's an absolute sin that modern ideas of political correctness are suppressing research into/greater knowledge of the different ways men and women's brains are wired. Holistic, intuitive and emotional ways of thinking/perceiving reality are great; it's where we get artists and philosophers; however, they're not always great if they try to masquerade as more logical, concrete, and non-emotional reasoning.

In areas like hard science, the capacity for more logical and concrete thinking is more necessary, and we're ignoring that women, biologically, may not be as inclined to have these forms of reasoning. It's not cultural, it's biological. In areas of politics and leadership, greater agreeableness, greater emotionality, greater empathy may be a great counterbalance to assertiveness and rationality --- a necessary counterbalance, in fact, because otherwise everything may rapidly become sociopathic and socially darwinistic. However, the female predisposition to these traits --- more agreeableness, more emotional and less rational, and more empathy --- without the counterbalance of the capacity for assertiveness and rationality may lead to impracticality and lack of success.

Thus, it's not some sin that female CEOs and engineer are rare. It's not necessarily culturally determined. Biologically, they just may not be predisposed to become this. Feminism also ignores all the women happy to be in traditionally feminine roles.

who knows? Maybe the best way to live is in a close knit community in the forest somewhere where technology like these computer screens don't dictate our entire life?
Maybe modernization is the worst thing ever or maybe its neutral. I'm not going to clain to answer that question.
And again, your argument rests on the idea that patrilineal societies is the only way to live such that it would have ever gotten "hard wired" in our brains.Humans have the versatility to generally organize ourselves whatever way we want. You are essentializing again.
The solution is not tinkering with anything my friend, but to let people live how they want free from bias and constraints of gender roles. Our society still actually "tinkers" and teaches men and women that they have to be any way, to "be a female" or a male rather than what they are comfortable.
If more females like wearing dress than males, so be it. If more a males like to work than ever consider being homemakers than women, then so be it. Though I think most people like the idea of at potentially finding a job wear they can work from home regardless.

Btw, what? lol Women still have sex when they are pregnant like normal. Some say they are hornier than usually actually, though it't probably just an anecdote. Just stick to certain positions and you're good.
You need to meet more women clearly.

>The solution is not tinkering with anything my friend, but to let people live how they want free from bias and constraints of gender roles. Our society still actually "tinkers" and teaches men and women that they have to be any way, to "be a female" or a male rather than what they are comfortable.
>If more females like wearing dress than males, so be it. If more a males like to work than ever consider being homemakers than women, then so be it. Though I think most people like the idea of at potentially finding a job wear they can work from home regardless.
What I'm saying is, your very idea of "gender roles" and "letting people be free from the constraints of gender roles" is a bias, even though you think it's the lack of a bias. Because you're saying that there may not be an ESSENCE in people which makes them act in certain ways, biologically. A man may act in a certain way and be more or less successful in certain fields due to biology, just like a woman may act in certain ways and be more or less successful in certain fields due to biology. A man may be happy acting in ways that are traditionally feminine, a woman in ways that are traditionally masculine -- however, just as equally, men may ACTUALLY be happy, and not be being coerced by society or anything, when they act/think/feel in ways traditionally masculine, and women may ACTUALLY be happy, and be being coerced by society or anything, when they act/think/feel in ways traditionally feminine. So yes, I am essentializing, because I think deep within people have a certain "essence" which knows what they won't, which knows what is good for them and will make them happy. Often, social conditioning layers an artificial personality, artificial wants and needs and thoughts totally distinct from this essence, pushing this essence of ourselves deep inside.

>Btw, what? lol Women still have sex when they are pregnant like normal. Some say they are hornier than usually actually, though it't probably just an anecdote. Just stick to certain positions and you're good.
>You need to meet more women clearly.
Yes, this is just an anecdote.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080531/
>Sexual activity is common in pregnancy, but the frequency varies widely, with a tendency to decrease with advancing gestational age.1,2 Decreased sexual activity may be attributable to nausea, fear of miscarriage, fear of harming the fetus, lack of interest, discomfort, physical awkwardness, fear of membrane rupture, fear of infection or fatigue.2 Libido and sexual satisfaction may also be negatively affected by a woman’s self-perception of decreased attractiveness. Typically, as pregnancy progresses, there is a decrease in the achievement of orgasm and sexual satisfaction, and an increase in painful intercourse

Also (same guy), here's a good article I just quickly pulled up from Google: stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

There are biological differences between men and women. I think men are typically happy being masculine and women typically happy being feminine, and that feminism can overrate how much gender roles exist as distinct from biology and how much they make people unhappy. Certainly these are true sometimes, but not all the time and not to the extent that feminism makes it seem. In fact, feminism may just be increasing discontent and creating problems that may not have existed at all by pushing men to try to be more traditionally feminine and demonizing traditional conceptions of masculinity, and vice versa for women. You think feminism is free of bias, but it's not necessarily. Instead of simply trying to be free from gender roles, it often pushes women to act more masculine and men to act more feminine.

Your ad hominem attacks not withstanding:
>despite no one talking about sleeping with multiple partners
is patently false. Multiple people raised the issue. I read your wall of text. I have trouble finding any direction other than legitimizing the current trend of powerslutting. In the end, if you are successful in this conversation, what will you have accomplished?

Now you are just lying.
Not all women are happy to be in traditional roles. Some are yes, and that is fine. I talked about this in another thread. People assume that all women self actualize in the same way and that all men self actualize in the same way. Not true. It is a bias.
It's safe to say that everyone who wants kids, wants to be a good "parent" so a woman wanting to be a "good mother" doesn't have to be different from a man wanting to be a "good father." Our society makes rules to make them seem like the two are completely different. You can be a good mother or a good father by working to support your family or being in the house most days doing the chores and staying with the kids most of the time doing your daughter's hair etc. ( though i feel both parents should make time to be involved in a child care no matter what personally). It's not either or. That's all a perception based on how we "used to do it." Tradition.
Women and male brains are somewhat different. the problem is the exaggeration of these differences that historically occurred and continues to this day. Some feminists may be but other are not ignoring everything. However it is worth noting that studies show that men and women will use different pathways to get to similar solutions.
Women may think about a problem differently from a vice versa, but it may be just as valid to a good solution if not better depending on the problem. That's why diversity of people and thus ideas is important. You are saying these differences must limit what men and women in general can do but I am saying it does not necessarily, definitely not in most situations.
Being a good leader also requires one to consider the group and be empathetic as well.
Again, you are minimizing the spectrum of these differences. How much is really more?
The fact that the entrance to women into fields of mathematics has increase 10 fold in the past 50 years say a lot about what cultural influences can do to ones interests and pursuits.
stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

No I'm serious it is common for pregnant women to still have sex. It's not that hard.
If you do it the right way it doesn't matter. all is just fears as you mentioned.
In the beginning stages of pregnancy, no such problems exist.
It really depends on the stage and the person.

I said "no one" as a hyperbole for me.
I did not make that the focus of my argument and you clearly missed the argument if that one sentence is all you and the others who did bring it up fixated on.
Go read it again.
They raised the issue because they did not understand the argument and I further clarified just like I did just now.
I told you I hate repeating myself.
The point is many guys here and you don't care if men think about or talk about sex. You don't care how men dress and use that as a tool to assume how many partners they had without knowing anything about them.

You( and in general our society) care about all that for women regardless of how little or no partners they had. Some of you will even say they deserve to get raped if they are dressed in a certain way which is a whole other argument. Luckily less people these days believe such nonsense.
The multitude of the partners was the least important issue as outlined in clearly in the beginning of the post. The fact that I really had to clarify again shows you are lying and did not read it or are just illiterate. That is why I insulted you.

It's so ridiculous that we have to convince people that women can do whatever the fuck they want and it's fine. You're ideology might crumble when we don't have clearly delineated roles for you to fill, but that's what makes it an ideology.

If you think women are ipso facto supposed to do a certain thing you are so ideologically blinded it is sad, but I guess there's hope for you people. Why have such a limited world view as to assume that half the population is supposed to be kept under strict sexual control ? What break down when the traditional family breaks down? that would be the same system that has caused every major world conflict, so yeah, fuck that.

OK. I'm not a woman and have never sex with a pregnant woman ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


>If you think women are ipso facto supposed to do a certain thing you are so ideologically blinded it is sad, but I guess there's hope for you people. Why have such a limited world view as to assume that half the population is supposed to be kept under strict sexual control ? What break down when the traditional family breaks down? that would be the same system that has caused every major world conflict, so yeah, fuck that.
Who's saying that? We're just saying that women and men have different psychologies due to different biologies, and people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations. Nothing so dogmatic as "keeping women under strict sexual control" or "women ipso facto are supposed to do a certain thing".

>people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations
how do you determine if/when someone isn't following their natural psychological inclination?

There is not an ESSENCE if every men is not like that. That is the idea of essentiallism bro...
If men want to act traditionally masculine no one is stopping them(except in the case toxic aspects of traditional masculinity because that actually hurts people but I will assume you do not mean that). If women want to act traditionally feminine, no one is stopping them.
People will fine what is confortable for them without being shamed or looked down upon.
I like wearing dresses and skirts sometimes though I despise holding bags most of the time and prefer pants with functional pockets. I also like video games when free and browse an anime imagery board. I want to be a surgeon. I prefer tall men to short. Now, no one is forcing me or any woman to be like this. I certainly am not.
Yet there are dissenters who will say women just aren't good at certain careers like men. Are you going to say that has no effect on the choices people make and how one feels about themselves? Btw, there is a articles showing that the probability of complications caused by women surgeons if actually slightly less than complications after surgery by male surgeons. Now it is not a lot less so it's nothing to boast about and it is likely due to a multitude of factors, not necessarily internal. It simply shows how absurd many of our preconceived notions are.
Just let people live. I'm not telling men or women to specifically DO anything. You kind of are.
I don't even have an issue with the traditional family so to speak.
Honestly, if you follow Veeky Forumstory the "traditional" nuclear family was not always as common than we think. The extended family was more popular in many places for a long time too.

>It's more like other men sharing a cereal bowl with the same spoon. Women ought to stay pure.
Also, Femininity and masculinity are made up and not at all natural. There are objects we call genitals and then there is the way we treat people who have certain genitals.

OP here, I would like to expand on this and say that every culture has a concept of 2-3 genders(mainly two) due to biological sex, but what it means to be either of them is different. depending on the culture.

Sure, but the key developments of feminist critique is that these conceptual roles are always made from culture, and necessarily "what is best for the given environment." Lot's of cultures developed human sacrifices (we still do this in America with the death penalty) but that doesn't make it "natural" or "biological"

>I said "no one" as a hyperbole for me.
When you are called on an error then it becomes "hyperbole".
>I did not make that the focus of my argument and you clearly missed the argument if that one sentence is all you and the others who did bring it up fixated on.
You wrote it. I addressed it. Butthurtedness ensued.
>Go read it again.
>They raised the issue because they did not understand the argument and I further clarified just like I did just now.
>I told you I hate repeating myself.
If anything, you over clarified - creating obfuscation. If you have a point then state it and let it stand against assault. Whenever one of your points is assaulted then you state that what is being assaulted is not the point.
>The point is many guys here and you don't care if men think about or talk about sex. You don't care how men dress and use that as a tool to assume how many partners they had without knowing anything about them.
I was thinking of a specific girl when I formed my thoughts for this thread. I was not making assumptions.
>You( and in general our society) care about all that for women regardless of how little or no partners they had. Some of you will even say they deserve to get raped if they are dressed in a certain way which is a whole other argument. Luckily less people these days believe such nonsense.
I said no such thing. This is demagoguery.
>The multitude of the partners was the least important issue as outlined in clearly in the beginning of the post. The fact that I really had to clarify again shows you are lying and did not read it or are just illiterate. That is why I insulted you.
I do not perceive the importance of the issue the same as you do. Failing to account for possible alternate perspectives is a fundamental premise of bigotry.

Irrelevant. I was making a joke going off your statement that you think girls must be pure in all ways. I wasn't revering to myself at all.
IT is not as constant for women as men sure, and getting an erection takes a bit more time for women. However, if you think most women can live easily without sex more than men, you are mistaken.
Women
Your argument assumes that gender roles/norms are biological( specifically the ones we adopted) when that is not the case. They were a choice by culture.
We DECIDED(this is huge as most animals don't decide anything) at some point that it would be more efficient to live like this. Efficient =/= absolute. These IDEAS about women MUST be chaste; men to a lesser extent are to function in a patralineal society. Why should anyone care just because it is easier or harder for one to control it/ get it than the other? Other other animals sure as hell don't care.
>this makes no sense, what does it have to do with this? Do you mean an UNattractive man will not waste his tame pursuing unattractive females for sex even on a bad day? If you mean an attractive man, why SHOULD he waste his time pursuing ugly females; and ugly females have no choice but to aim for ugly males --- in this case, what is wrong with this?

Literally nothing is wrong with it bro....I was just stating facts. lol When it comes to looks, everyone needs to know their position in life. this is only rational.I was just using it to point out the flawed idea that it is easier for women to get laid hence they should be judged harder than males for even thinking about sex as they were in the past and kind of still are. You completely misunderstood my point here.

I wrote it IN OP but said it was not the point and even specifically explained why it shouldn't really be the point in feminism and why I kind of disagree with guy in pic related. You can't explain away this level of illiteracy. Just stop.
You know the specific girl and her life style though so, that is irrelevant to every girl you meet who you do not know.
I did not say you said it specifically. I said some of you as in people on this board. But again, keep reading word for word to point out nonexistent inconsistencies that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. If only you read the first post this closely, I wouldn't have to repeat myself again eh?

>Irrelevant.
Well, there is this:
>yes. A good Christian boy shouldn't be on this site at all. Lest you are not much better than a Christian girl who thinks about sex =') Now repent.
You have no business holding people to account for beliefs that you do not hold.
>I was making a joke going off your statement that you think girls must be pure in all ways.
I never stated this. You are making a strawman argument.

I don't know. That's a very broad question.

I'm not telling them to do anything. I'm just stating the facts: they have predispositions, they have different biologies leading to different psychologies leading to different ways of acting, thinking, and feeling.

>Also, Femininity and masculinity are made up and not at all natural. There are objects we call genitals and then there is the way we treat people who have certain genitals.
Gee, thanks for not reading stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html. You sound like you're 12 years old and all your opinions have been taken from the society around you.

I didn't say ALL are happy to be in traditional roles, but that often the ones who are are ignored in today's cultural climate. Again, we think feminism is a lack of bias, but actually it IS a bias against traditional gender roles -- there are men perfectly happy being masculine, who like being that and are not entirely like that due to cultural influences, and are not "toxically masculine", and the same for women. I am fine with women and men expanding into different gender roles, doing what they can, I also agree that feminism has changed the cultural climate to free women to fulfill more and more varying and perhaps more fulfilling roles for them.

The problem I see is when feminism oversteps from "removing the bias towards traditional gender roles" to "actively having a bias towards traditional gender roles". I don't think there is some bedrock "masculine" every man should be and some bedrock "feminine" every woman should be --- rather that there are TENDENCIES corresponding to these, and that, naturally and on average, men and women go towards these tendencies and there's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong if some want to go against these tendencies, but there's also nothing wrong if, say, one argues that we don't need to make everyone go against these tendencies. I also think there's nothing wrong with saying that, on average, men and women are different and may be happier on average in different roles.

If a woman wants to be an engineer, great. Or a CEO, great. But I think there's nothing wrong with saying that, biologically, psychologically, neurologically, women on average will not have the traits to the same extent as men do which will make them successful in these fields. There ARE outliers, and they definitely should be given a free path to become what they want. But it seems to me feminism exaggerates the outliers, and makes it seem we're all secretly discontent with gender roles, that men and women act in certain ways just due to cultural conditioning.

I mean, hell, the article I gave here stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html even shows that female MONKEYS prefer more traditionally feminine toys, and male monkeys more traditionally masculine toys, as well as infants.

>actively having a bias towards traditional gender roles
*a bias against traditional gender roles

This argument is the classic snake way out of dealing with your ideology. The break that feminist critique makes with gender roles isn't undercut by the idea that it's antagonistic to imposed traditional gender norms. IMPOSED gender norms. It is the imposition, the forcing of people to be a certain way, that is in question.

And "girl?"
Why did you say "girl". That sentence was about guys...
Tell me now is there a specific guy that came to your mind when you read this? Probably not because men are not demonized in the same ways. And again, I'm not even talking about # of partners.
You don't need to be a christian to know the rules of Christianity especially in a western nation where a lot of peopel were or are Christian. Are you serious? You just state one of them: women must be pure.

I am going to actually play devil's advocate and assume you want this for men too.
Regardless, I may totally call you out the same way I can call out a strict Muslim for not wearing their hijab, not eating halal, and more importantly, drinking and having premarital sex.
It was a joke to point out hypocrisy anyway.

Feminism isn't one homogeneous block, and anti/non-feminism isn't one homogeneous block either. Nothing in my posts suggests that I ever wanted to force people to be a certain way, and, moreover, I don't really know everything you think, and everything you think isn't everything feminism thinks because feminism is a very broad field with a lot of different views in it.

What I'm saying is, you're arguing with someone else, not me. "This argument is the classic snake way out of dealing with '''''''''''''your ideology'''''''''''." What is my ideology exactly? All I've done is give you some of my thoughts on why what we traditionally call feminism isn't totally right. I'm not trying to foist some ideology here.

>That's a very broad question.
it was a broad statement.
read it again
>people may, indeed, be naturally happier if they follow some of these psychological inclinations.
what does that mean? what are natural psychological inclinations? if out of 100 capuchin females, 80 prefer 'feminine' toys and display preference for 'traditional' play type-- does that make that behavior the result of a natural psychological inclination? Is that the explanandum? What of the other 20? How is their atypical behavior explained? Is it unnatural?

Claiming that having a bias in favor of gender roles having a bias against gender roles are equivalent position requires at least a somewhat misogynist ideology. Notice I never said that your post advocated that. I bring up the imposition of gender roles because your post DIDN'T bring them up, and the fact that people have been forced through the threat of violence to act a certain way most of the time is more of a threat to humanity than having a bias against these traditions.

Well with what I know about feminism and about the brains of men and women. I will just day you are wrong and no one is being forced to rid their essence as it is not an "essence." It is just one's personality/atitude. A specific personality may or may not be more common in men or women. Regardless, we are off the subject. Gender norms about how women and male sexuality SHOULD be are not biological but contrived. Emphasis on should for the reason as this is the issue. What people do is just what that they do. There is no ought.

What are natural psychological inclinations? That's a dumb question and you know it. You are being quite (and excuse my vulgarity here) autistic. You know what a natural psychological inclination is. Natural --- of nature, average, normal, as opposed to artificially imposed by cultural/social conditioning. Psychological inclination --- tending towards something more, liking something.

Yes, if those 80 prefer the feminine toys, that's a statistically more average natural psychological inclination. The other 20 also have a natural psychological inclination (animals I think are practically all natural psychological inclination, they don't have as artificial cultural/social programming as people do) but it is not the average for the whole species. For whatever reason, their brains are slightly different, they choose somewhat differently. Good for them, they are a minority. Feminism -- and a vocal group of leftism in general -- today seems to be a tyranny of the minority, with everyone trying to make the 80% like the 20%.

If you could read my posts and get your head out of (again excuse my vulgarity) your bottom, you would see I'm not trying to say this 20% should become like the 80% either. Yes, I know there are "tomboys" and I know there are more traditionally feminine men. Fine for them if they're living well and not being malicious to those around them. My issue is precisely in this malice, in imposing one's own subjectivity on everyone else. A woman is very rationally minded, has unusually good mathematical skills -- great for her. Let her become an engineer if she wants to. But this vociferous ranting about how the lack of enough female engineers is a total injustice, how it should be 50/50, is completely irrational and ignores that women and men have biologically different brain structures which may lead to men being better engineers than women. Not cultural conditioning, not society, not imposed gender roles, but biology.

Not everyone is biologically average, but, statistically speaking, more are close to it than are not. So let those who are not biologically average flourish, but don't say that they should be the norm -- because that is, again, a bias!

>You don't need to be a christian to know the rules of Christianity especially in a western nation where a lot of peopel were or are Christian.
If you are not in-group then your opinion regarding self-policing behavior holds no merit.
> Are you serious? You just state one of them: women must be pure.
Once again - and let me be perfectly clear - I NEVER STATED THIS. YOU ARE MAKING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT OUT OF THINGS THAT I NEVER STATED.
>It was a joke to point out hypocrisy anyway.
>hypocrisy
>for something that I never said
Pottery meats bucketweaving.

>What people do is just what that they do. There is no ought.
Yes, people have no freewill. Great. I know that. So this entire argument is useless, and what humanity does is what it does, whether it has certain views on sex or not. There is no ought. Thank you for destroying your own argument. Sorry if I'm being harsh, I'm sleepy.

>at least a somewhat misogynistic ideology
What is misogyny? I think hatred and anger are useless, and try not to hate anyone. What do people choose to do? Science says we're just robots who don't choose anything. I don't hate women. I certainly think they're different from men and better at some things and worse at others on average. Is this misogyny?

I think violence is wrong. We shouldn't violently force people/use the threat of violence to make them act in a certain way. But I think this should be a more general problem and should be removed from the idea of feminism. You could be a pacifist and a non-feminist -- as I effectively am, for example. So I'd never say "We should VIOLENTLY force women to act feminine and men to act masculine." I'd rather do away with violence if I could. Making people understand peacefully is much better. The trouble with feminism is often a psychological and social violence, a hypocrisy. What started as freeing women to expand their roles more and freeing men to expand their roles more has more led to berating men and women for acting, thinking, and feeling in certain ways which they may like and may naturally act, think, and feel in.

Yes thinking that people with vaginas are predisposed ( by anything other than culture) to be worse at some things is indicative of at least a little misogyny.

How come feminists don't believe in science?

could you point me toward these statistics you speak of? the research that they are derived from?
what does 'biologically average' mean? i've never come across this term in any of my population genetics textbooks.
weird.
who has been trying to impose a code of behavior on the general population of woman? do you have names? 'leftists' is pretty vague.

OK? I also think people with dicks are predisposed to be worse at certain things, which is indicative of at least a little misandry. For instance, people with dicks aren't often as good at having children. Less facetiously, they are also often less emotional and less empathetic. Also, I think people with vaginas are predisposed to be better at certain things. More holistic forms of thought, more intuitive, more empathetic.

Biological and statistical facts are misogyny?

could you point me toward the science?
maybe something beyond the one popsci mag article that's been spammed all this thread

>Yes thinking that people with vaginas are predisposed ( by anything other than culture) to be worse at some things is indicative of at least a little misogyny.
Then why are they repeatedly asking me to move heavy objects and get things off of the high shelves for them? They said it was too heavy. They said it was too high. Was it all lies?

Yes, I can. In fact, if I already have pointed you, or others in this thread, to it several times.

stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

You can also very easily Google it and get tons of results.

Well what do you expect? It's an anonymous board, obviously people will get mistaken for others until proven otherwise. Go to reddit or some site with user names if you want to be free of this problem.
>If you are not in-group
And I disagree. A person can call out bullshit behavior when they see bullshit behavior. I can call out a persob for not doing their job even if I don't work at the place when I know the work place regulations.
I will not sit here in argue this with you. Just know is not logically sound however.

>Biological and statistical facts are misogyny
again, where are these facts?

You're proving my point. There are people with penises who give birth, but you're worldview doesn't encompass them, even though they exist, your worldview would deny them. If you hold these thoughts you are indeed misogynist, and thinking that men aren't good at emotions doesn't solve the fallacy. There could be a world where everyone is physically strong and emotionally empathetic, but your ideology prevents it.

Also, women are physically weaker by men, biologically. So people with vaginas are definitely predisposed, by something very other than culture, to be worse at being physically strong.

Yeah, Stanford Medicine is very popsci and unreliable. Heard of Google, by the way? You'll get a lot of results if you search for research on this, and it feels a bit demeaning, since we both presumably have access to the same internet, to do this work for you. If I was writing a scholarly article, I'd obviously have my citations ready, but we're arguing on a Korean sculpture pictureboard.

Science was posted.
Lurk more.
There is an excellent article on brain differences between men and women that I posted. There are feminist scientist btw. My genetics professor was female.

oh look, it's the same article you've posted seventy times already.
the one I already read
i'm starting to think you're not very widely nor very deeply read on this subject
i'm starting to think you only really have an ideological ax to grind
>You can also very easily Google it and get tons of results.
i am asking where YOU got all YOUR information
i know where i'd start and it isn't google

I think you misread my post.

>completely screws the pooch
>strawmans a second time on the same point after being informed regarding said dogfucking
>blames Veeky Forums
>tells me to go elsewhere to rid myself of his incompetence
Next stanza, please. This is precious.

And it doesn't go much farther than that. Women are physically weaker, so traditional submissive gender roles aren't something to be abolished? Sorry doesn't work. We grow long sharp nails but we cut them off because we don't need them anymore, like outdated ideology.

Please see and .

>There are people with penises who give birth, but you're worldview doesn't encompass them, even though they exist, your worldview would deny them
You realize I said aren't "OFTEN" as good as giving birth, right? Not to brag, but ever since childhood I've often had the tendency to be very un-absolutist in my language, since I obviously know exceptions to things exist.

>There could be a world where everyone is physically strong and emotionally empathetic, but your ideology prevents it.
Again, what is my ideology? Who am I? What do you know about my beliefs just from these posts? Does every non-feminist person share my beliefs? See about being overly absolutist and not realizing feminism and non-feminism aren't homogeneous blocks, and that we can't discern each others ideologies by encapsulating them with one word and summing them up with all others of one group. Isn't that the stereotyping you claim to be against?

Moreover, I don't think there is a world where everyone could be physically strong and emotionally empathetic. Infants cannot be physically strong. Some people with genetic diseases, who get crippled or maimed or otherwise ill cannot be physically strong. People who do not want to get physically strong and are born with weaker bodies will not get physically strong. Same with empathy --- some people are born with deficient brains, and/or trauma/drug abuse makes them less empathetic. Such people are called, of course, sociopaths. My ideology has nothing to do with the lack of existence of such a paradise. It's God you want to criticize here, not me.

Also, if you've read my posts, you'd see I have nothing against people developing certain faculties which aren't traditional for their roles. I just see nothing necessarily dogmatic about it. In , for instance, I admitted that, for example, "Holistic, intuitive and emotional ways of thinking/perceiving reality are great; it's where we get artists and philosophers."

That article did not say that because o these slight observed differences, that men will be better field or be interested more in certain tasks like you are saying. These are just observed differences that may or may not have effects on any aspects of choices each gender in humans will make?
Hell, even the things with the monkey and dolls, how can we control for the fact that perhaps the baby monkeys were influence by the fact that in those gorilla colonies, the moms (females)are usually holding the babies and that is all they see? Unlike us humans, monkeys cannot alter their environments/surroundings as drastically as we humans can.

I am OP and I posted said article I was referring.

If you are really going to cry about it the rest of this entire thread then you might as well leave.

Why are all the top athletes, scientists, philosophers, world leaders, inventors, etc. all men? Maybe it's just a coincidence.

you got all your information on this subject from a single article?
why are any of us paying any attention to you?
what do you know about any of this?
second-hand tidbits from a solitary source
bolstering a cavalcade of cliches
sounds
like
reddit
desu

You're not seeing past the way culture has conditioned bodies to be certain ways. Nothing about biology makes women "nurturing," or men not so, you are confusing biology and culture over and over again, and your only evidence is that people have often made the same mistake. You admit that your worldview is limited, so I guess that's that.

Why do you think one needs to be widely and deeply read on a subject to be right? Truth is truth regardless of whether it's repeated one time or a million times, and idiocy is idiocy whether it's repeated one time or a million times. There's a lot of Nazi and pro-eugenics literature, but even if I read all of them, I wouldn't necessarily be more right and more of an authority on what we need to do with the Jews. As I'm saying, there's a lot of scientific research on the biological and psychological differences between men and women, and if I read one article which is true, I still have some truth. It's not less true if I haven't read a million other articles.

Your intellectual cowardice and mechanicality aside, let me direct you to some wonderful websites:

lmgtfy.com/?q=men and woman empathy difference
lmgtfy.com/?q=men and woman brain difference
lmgtfy.com/?q=difference between male and female thinking process

>Women are physically weaker, so traditional submissive gender roles aren't something to be abolished?
Jesus, I'm trying to tell you that you're being a parrot when you say this. What are traditional submissive gender roles and why do we need to abolish them? You're showing so many unquestioned assumptions you think are absolute truth when you say that.