Scientific Evidence Suggests That Gender Roles are Indeed Artifical Constructs - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14806307
According to a new article in Scientific American "Of Meat and Men" (Can't find it online right now, will get the url later if people want) diets suggests that during much of prehistory, gender roles did not exist or were heavy reduced. It was only during the later bronze age (c 2000 BCE) that gender roles appeared and women became poorly treated.

Thoughts?
#14806321
MememyselfandIJK wrote:According to a new article in Scientific American "Of Meat and Men" (Can't find it online right now, will get the url later if people want) diets suggests that during much of prehistory, gender roles did not exist or were heavy reduced. It was only during the later bronze age (c 2000 BCE) that gender roles appeared and women became poorly treated.

Thoughts?


There is no gender, only biological sex. Sex defined roles existed long before the bronze age.
#14806327
Thompson_NCL wrote:There is no gender, only biological sex. Sex defined roles existed long before the bronze age.


For the last time google "difference between sex and gender." You seem to be getting the two confused -- There is a scientifically accepted difference.

For more go here
#14806331
MememyselfandIJK wrote:For the last time google "difference between sex and gender." You seem to be getting the two confused -- There is a scientifically accepted difference.

For more go here


And I am saying I reject the concept of gender as distinct from sex, so you can cite all the "scientifically accept" nonsense you like. Science is wrong all the time, that is not in itself an argument.
#14806335
Thompson_NCL wrote:And I am saying I reject the concept of gender as distinct from sex, so you can cite all the "scientifically accept" nonsense you like. Science is wrong all the time, that is not in itself an argument.


Give me an example of when science was outright wrong (Philosophy and religious thought does not count).
#14806338
It doesn't matter whether or not they are natural. It wouldn't support gender roles if it were and it wouldn't make them bad just by dent of being a societal construct.

The argument can only truly be about whether or not they are useful, desirable, or good here and now regardless of their origins.
#14806341
All those sex-specific anatomical, physiological and behavioural attributes in the animal kingdom are against psyunce. The physiological and neuro-psychological profiles of males have no social or cultural dimensions. The musculature of a man and accompanying physiological traits are fiction and have no psyuncetific basis.

Men are women with penises and they should wear dresses from now on. Remember, everyone is first female in the womb, until a chromosomal deficiency leads the female foetus to be afflicted with a tumorous growth between her legs.
#14806343
MememyselfandIJK wrote:Give me an example of when science was outright wrong (Philosophy and religious thought does not count).


Are you for real? Science is constantly proving theories wrong, revising "facts" and so forth. That's how science works. People believe the "facts" until they are proven wrong. You can search "science wrong" in Google and get an endless stream of examples.

One of the big issues for science is that the people observing the phenomena are not free from bias, and although a peer review process reduces the impact of personal bias, it doesn't help to address social biases. You need evidence of that too?

Here's a nice easy example of science being wrong: In the 80's it was expected we'd be in another ice age by now. But when I look outside, I ain't seeing glaciers.
#14806344
Thompson_NCL wrote:Are you for real? Science is constantly proving theories wrong, revising "facts" and so forth. That's how science works. People believe the "facts" until they are proven wrong. You can search "science wrong" in Google and get an endless stream of examples.

One of the big issues for science is that the people observing the phenomena are not free from bias, and although a peer review process reduces the impact of personal bias, it doesn't help to address social biases. You need evidence of that too?

Here's a nice easy example of science being wrong: In the 80's it was expected we'd be in another ice age by now. But when I look outside, I ain't seeing glaciers.


Fair enough. I only asked that question because too many people who claim that science is wrong resort to examples of philosophy (ie Earth at the center of the universe) and/or religious dogma. In the 80s we thought we would enter an ice age because we didn't have enough data. Now that we have more data that indicates that the Earth is warming.

Likewise, in the past medicine thought that if you weren't straight and cisgender, you had a mental illness. Now we have enough data to indicate that trans or gay people can be productive members of society if they are given a chance to indicate their expression.
#14806351
Mental illnesses are defined by psychologists not neurobiologists because the diagnosis is subjective as well as the difference between a functional person with a quirk and someone who can't function because of a mental trait.

The difference between being a moody sad person and being depressed or bipolar is whether or not they can function in society. It's not something you can determine with a test strip.

Outside of really extreme stuff like schizophrenia that we can all largely agree is a problem it can be very subjective if something is actually a problem or a person functional. Gay people can get along just fine, hold jobs, and live stable lives while being gay. It wasn't accepted by society so it was deemed a problem anyway. Until it wasn't.

My view on transsexualism is the same. As long as they are functional human beings in every other respect, aren't a danger to anyone, and will get along just fine then it's not an issue that needs to be pathologized.

You can still think they are crazy in that respect. You can not talk to them, be rude, or whatever else within the bounds of accepted social behavior, but ultimately it just doesn't matter all that much.

Bob's Brenda now, you don't ever have to talk to them again, but I mean what are you going to do?

The only real fight I see is over equal employment and housing laws and the bathroom stuff. Neither of which seems to matter very much except for the trans community and the people who really really hate them. The issue is treated like some monumentally huge challenge of the age when in reality it is almost entirely unimportant to most people.
#14806388
According the Engels gender roles only came amount with the advent of farming (Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State). You really don't need research or archaeologists or anthropologists to tell us what Engels has already put down as part of the Marxist cannon many years ago.
#14806397
Decky wrote:According the Engels gender roles only came amount with the advent of farming (Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State). You really don't need research or archaeologists or anthropologists to tell us what Engels has already put down as part of the Marxist cannon many years ago.


This is precisely what this article is suggesting. Before extensive agriculture and specialization, men and women were considered equal. It was only during the Bronze age that specific events arose allowing men to oppress women. The article gives the specific example of the first Chinese warring states period where the warrior culture became masculine rather than gender neutral, and the rest is history.

Congratulations to Engels for pointing out that gender roles are an artificial, burdensome construct, far ahead of his time. :excited:

In order for society to advance, we must abolish the last of gender constructs and embrace a culture of gender fluidity where the only restrictions are technological. If we fail to advance our ideals, we will forever be stuck in this dark ages of capitalistic ignorance where humans compete with one another and attempt to put themselves on the top. Discrimination has be a favored means of competition -- by putting a whole minority down, we improve our individual chances of success, but we diminish society and we move ever further away from the grand picture of progress. If we even go so far as complimenting those who do so, we spiral ever further into the tyrannical clutches of regress.
Last edited by MememyselfandIJK on 19 May 2017 20:35, edited 1 time in total.
#14806401
I hate to sound like some Protestant Solar Scriptura type but the Gospel of Marx-Engels-Lenin provides every belief a man needs in life, I own a selected works of Marx and Engels that was printed in the Soviet Union just before it fell and it has helped me though some very difficult times.

The origin of the family does not get the recognition it deserves as one of the great Marxists works imo.
#14806403
Decky wrote:I hate to sound like some Protestant Solar Scriptura type but the Gospel of Marx-Engels-Lenin provides every belief a man needs in life, I own a selected works of Marx and Engels that was printed in the Soviet Union just before it fell and it has helped me though some very difficult times.

The origin of the family does not get the recognition it deserves as one of the great Marxists works imo.


Any idea where I could get some (I'm assuming not that capitalistic empire built on exploitation that we call Amazon)?

Or maybe because Zionists are full of shit and som[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A good discussion here with Norman Finkelstein and[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]