4 ms·

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Have any of you ever actually talked to a woman? I'll boil down the argument into one that favors wo

by rhygar 15y ago

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Have any of you ever actually talked to a woman? I'll boil down the argument into one that favors women: Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. After all, it's their biology. And thus all men should be regarded as likely violent in the right circumstances. Also we should not trust men to care for small children, because they have no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological drive for child-rearing.

orangecat 15y ago
The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Suggesting that biological factors result in statistical differences between men and women is not misogyny. "Different" does not mean better or worse. Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. Essentially true. "Biologically programmed" is a bit strong, but in a sexism-free utopia would you seriously expect 50% of violent criminals to be women? Also we should not trust men to care for small children, because they have no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological drive for child-rearing. Strawman. Nobody is saying that women should be discouraged from or can't excel in any area. It's just that if individual choices result in more male than female tech startup founders, and more female than male preschool workers, it may not be due to the all-powerful patriarchy.
- rhygar 15y ago
  I find it amusing that you took a parody of the group-think displayed here as a serious argument.
johngalt 15y ago
Most of the people on here are debating the degree that gender affects life choices and goals (obviously it does to some degree). It's not misogyny to debate the differences between men and women. No one is advocating that women should be categorically denied access to certain societal roles. If I said: "Because of X, Y, & Z it's possible that biology has had more effect on female career choices than the 'patriarchy'." Does that make me a misogynist? Could there be any answer to why genders cluster around certain careers other than the 'patriarchy'? If that's the only answer you could ever acknowledge and anything else is "ignorance and misogyny" I think you should examine that. And your argument is exactly how men are treated, and many of those biases are institutional. Imagine if women weren't allowed to seek protection from domestic violence, and had no reproductive rights at all? That's the world every man lives in. It's a little insulting to be admonished how to properly speak to women, while men are imprisoned every day because of their gender.
- rhygar 15y ago
  The problem is not that men are discriminated against in certain ways. I never denied that fact. The problem is de facto oppression of women based on some idea that their biology makes them want to be stupid. Therefore since it's their biology we should expect and indeed encourage the "normal" path of limiting life accomplishments to child-rearing?

by rhygar 15y ago

orangecat 15y ago

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Suggesting that biological factors result in statistical differences between men and women is not misogyny. "Different" does not mean better or worse. Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. Essentially true. "Biologically programmed" is a bit strong, but in a sexism-free utopia would you seriously expect 50% of violent criminals to be women? Also we should not trust men to care for small children, because they have no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological drive for child-rearing. Strawman. Nobody is saying that women should be discouraged from or can't excel in any area. It's just that if individual choices result in more male than female tech startup founders, and more female than male preschool workers, it may not be due to the all-powerful patriarchy.

rhygar 15y ago
I find it amusing that you took a parody of the group-think displayed here as a serious argument.

johngalt 15y ago

Most of the people on here are debating the degree that gender affects life choices and goals (obviously it does to some degree). It's not misogyny to debate the differences between men and women. No one is advocating that women should be categorically denied access to certain societal roles. If I said: "Because of X, Y, & Z it's possible that biology has had more effect on female career choices than the 'patriarchy'." Does that make me a misogynist? Could there be any answer to why genders cluster around certain careers other than the 'patriarchy'? If that's the only answer you could ever acknowledge and anything else is "ignorance and misogyny" I think you should examine that. And your argument is exactly how men are treated, and many of those biases are institutional. Imagine if women weren't allowed to seek protection from domestic violence, and had no reproductive rights at all? That's the world every man lives in. It's a little insulting to be admonished how to properly speak to women, while men are imprisoned every day because of their gender.

rhygar 15y ago
The problem is not that men are discriminated against in certain ways. I never denied that fact. The problem is de facto oppression of women based on some idea that their biology makes them want to be stupid. Therefore since it's their biology we should expect and indeed encourage the "normal" path of limiting life accomplishments to child-rearing?