Keeping an open mind (Non-technical)

Comments

1. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Now, my wife and I are completely against "gender roles" as deemed appropriate by society. What's wrong with a man knowing how to cook, or a woman that knows how to handle a rifle? Nothing wrong with woman shooting a rifle. And men are often cooks. Cooking are not only for women. But do you suggest that men should also put on dresses from time to time, apply lipstck, eye shadows, make pigtails and sit at home raising kids while their wifes surve army when 18, then go to work as luberjack, do bodybuilding occasionally, and teach their kids martial arts at weekends? Do you suggets this is absolutely normal? Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Enforcing "roles" based on an individual's gender restricts that individual from fully exploring life. So what is the difference between sexes then?

   Posted 11-02-2013 at 04:23 AM by Mr. Alex

2. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex do you suggest that men should also put on dresses from time to time, apply lipstck, eye shadows, make pigtails and sit at home raising kids while their wifes surve army when 18, then go to work as luberjack, do bodybuilding occasionally, and teach their kids martial arts at weekends? I do not personally believe that is normal, no...but I also realize it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life. There are "identifying" traits that society expects of the genders, and there are "characteristic" traits that society expects of the gender roles. My daughter dresses appropriately (and that doesn't necessarily mean "dress, lipstick, eyeshadow, etc"...) and so does my son. Identifying traits (that allow people to go "oh, that's a boy") are encouraged. Characteristic traits ("girls don't play in the mud", "boys don't sew", etc...) are NOT encouraged in my household. My daughter is a bit of a tomboy, yes, and my son is a bit of a momma's boy (she's 10 and he's 4, so that's not entirely uncommon). I see nothing wrong with that. But you didn't read my post in it's entirety...I stated that "that's the theory, now on to reality". I'm stating that yeah, I don't play the gender role card in my house, but I still can't help seeing my son as a son and my daughter as a daughter. Glad to see you cherry-picked three sentences to quote and completely missed the rest.

   Posted 11-04-2013 at 01:14 PM by rocket357 Updated 11-04-2013 at 01:16 PM by rocket357

3. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Glad to see you cherry-picked three sentences to quote and completely missed the rest. No, it's not about picking up three sentences and missing the rest. What caught my eye here is the “gender roles” collocation. First, there's no such thing as “gender”. Humankind is divided into two sexes — men and women. What's “gender”? Second, there are no “roles” when it comes to differences between men and women. Where did you even get this? Men cannot be just like women because of their nature. And vice versa. When woman behaves as a woman, she doesn't “play” any “role”. She is just being herself. And third, you say: Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 but I also realize it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life Today almost everybody says “It's not my business how others want to live their lives, so let them do whatever they want; I don't care”. Just to give you a hint: how do you think, why is there a law of government, forcing people to do different things while forbidding doing others?

   Posted 11-05-2013 at 09:03 AM by Mr. Alex

4. Gender and sex are not synonyms. Gender is the cultural expression of masculinity and femininity. Sex is the biological expression. So to echo rocket357, all expression of differences based on sex is, theoretically, culturally defined. That was my working theory too until I actually had kids too. The only color my girl knew for nearly a year was pink. The greater world has a bigger influence than I would have thought even on toddlers. I also think the physical differences that we do not yet understand have an impact as well. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex Nothing wrong with woman shooting a rifle. And men are often cooks. Cooking are not only for women. But do you suggest that men should also put on dresses from time to time, apply lipstck, eye shadows, make pigtails and sit at home raising kids while their wifes surve army when 18, then go to work as luberjack, do bodybuilding occasionally, and teach their kids martial arts at weekends? Do you suggets this is absolutely normal? The concepts of abnormal and normal are not absolutes. They represent the assessment of what is acceptable by the majority of people. At one time the majority of people found stay-at-home dads unacceptable. That assessment is changing such that the concept of a stay-at-home dad making pig tails and being a primary caregiver while a mom serves in the military is not abnormal. Nor is the concept women weight-lifting and teaching martial arts considered abnormal. The identification of all of these activities as belonging to one gender or another or both is culturally defined with only a tiny bit drawn from the physical differences. I think we differentiate between what a person does and what a person is so that dresses and make up are still exclusively associated with females since they represent womanhood while jobs and hobbies are less strongly identified with gender since they are what humans do. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex So what is the difference between sexes then? I'm sure you're familiar with the major physical differences between the sexes. I think we are still discovering what the differences are in brain and body chemistry. The differences between the genders is quite a bit more fluid. As one of those people benefiting from Title IX and EOE which lets me play sports and hold down a job I'm pretty glad that cultural attitudes can be changed.

   Posted 11-05-2013 at 09:44 AM by vmccord Updated 11-05-2013 at 09:46 AM by vmccord

5. Quote: Originally Posted by vmccord The concepts of abnormal and normal are not absolutes. They represent the assessment of what is acceptable by the majority of people. At one time the majority of people found stay-at-home dads unacceptable... If times change, should one stick to his outdated ideals and beliefs and go againt the crowd (when crowd changes concepts of abnormal and normal) or adjust? What would be right? (I have an answer for myself, I just wanna hear others' opinions.) Quote: Originally Posted by vmccord Gender is the cultural expression of masculinity and femininity. Sex is the biological expression. Say, a man is learning martial arts and shooting heavy weapons. Just 'cause he likes it. Is it expression of sex or “gender”?

   Posted 11-05-2013 at 10:45 AM by Mr. Alex

6. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex First, there's no such thing as “gender”. Humankind is divided into two sexes — men and women. What's “gender”? Second, there are no “roles” when it comes to differences between men and women. Where did you even get this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...nder_role.html I really do wish you were right, Mr. Alex. I would love a world free of "do's and don'ts" for the sexes...but reality being what it is, there are simply too many people out there who don't view the world the way you do (sadly, too...the world would be better if people didn't force children into molds based on their sex). I'm happy to hear that the concept is alien to you =) Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex Today almost everybody says “It's not my business how others want to live their lives, so let them do whatever they want; I don't care”. Just to give you a hint: how do you think, why is there a law of government, forcing people to do different things while forbidding doing others? Killing someone with a claw hammer is a considerably different beast than a man wearing a dress. For the record, I don't believe either one is "normal", but to add to my previous statement on the topic, I'm ok with it as long as someone is expressing their freedom in a manner that doesn't infringe on my ability to express my freedom (disagreeing with me doesn't infringe on my freedom, nor does doing stuff I disagree with...but killing me with a claw hammer sorta hampers my ability to express myself).

   Posted 11-05-2013 at 04:55 PM by rocket357 Updated 11-05-2013 at 05:05 PM by rocket357

7. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 I really do wish you were right, Mr. Alex. I would love a world free of "do's and don'ts" for the sexes...but reality being what it is, there are simply too many people out there who don't view the world the way you do (sadly, too...the world would be better if people didn't force children into molds based on their sex). I'm happy to hear that the concept is alien to you =) I'm not sure you understood my views correctly. I don't have “gender role” collocation in my language and what it means is that my views are very traditional. I don't call social norms “gender roles”. My views are that from birth girls are supposed to be raised as girls. They should be tought to be caring, emotional, sensitive, to always listen to their husbands and do what they are told to do by their husbands (as long as it doesn't contrary to God's commandments) while boys should be those who rule the country, rule their family, who make decisions both for themselves and for their wives and bear responsibility. Who protects others. And it's absolutely unacceptable for men to make pigtails, apply eye shadows, walk like a woman and generally behave like one. I guess it's called “traditions”, not “gender roles”. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Killing someone with a claw hammer is a considerably different beast than a man wearing a dress. While it is easy to understand why killing is not allowed by law, let's examine growing, cooking and taking drugs. Why is it illegal to grow, cook and take drugs if you only do it to yourself?

   Posted 11-06-2013 at 07:56 AM by Mr. Alex

8. 	Quote: Originally Posted by vmccord all expression of differences based on sex is, theoretically, culturally defined. You do realise it's a wrong theory?
   	Posted 11-06-2013 at 08:18 AM by Mr. Alex

9. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex I don't call social norms “gender roles”. A rose is a flower is a plant is an organism. "Gender role" may be a specific "social norm", but changing the name doesn't change the issue. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex My views are that from birth girls are supposed to be raised as girls. They should be tought to be caring, emotional, sensitive, to always listen to their husbands and do what they are told to do by their husbands (as long as it doesn't contrary to God's commandments) while boys should be those who rule the country, rule their family, who make decisions both for themselves and for their wives and bear responsibility. Who protects others. And it's absolutely unacceptable for men to make pigtails, apply eye shadows, walk like a woman and generally behave like one. I guess it's called “traditions”, not “gender roles”. You are, by definition, enforcing gender roles if these statements are true. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex While it is easy to understand why killing is not allowed by law, let's examine growing, cooking and taking drugs. Why is it illegal to grow, cook and take drugs if you only do it to yourself? Alcohol kills more innocent bystanders (drunk drivers, for instance) every year than illegal drugs. Why is alcohol legal?

   Posted 11-06-2013 at 09:00 AM by rocket357

10. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 You are, by definition, enforcing gender roles if these statements are true. OK then. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Alcohol kills more innocent bystanders (drunk drivers, for instance) every year than illegal drugs. Why is alcohol legal? Let's first answer the question about drugs: why is it illegal to grow, cook and take drugs if you only do it to yourself?

    Posted 11-06-2013 at 09:17 AM by Mr. Alex

11. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex Let's first answer the question about drugs: why is it illegal to grow, cook and take drugs if you only do it to yourself? Ok, I'll bite. It's illegal to manufacture and consume drugs because a group of politicians decided it should be illegal. The reasoning behind making that decision is probably something along the lines of "statistically, people who consume drugs commit crimes to support their habit" or some-such. I don't know, so really, I'm curious to hear your theory. Then we'll deal with alcohol.

    Posted 11-06-2013 at 09:45 AM by rocket357

12. Holy cow. One busy day and I'm totally out of the loop. 1. "Say, a man is learning martial arts and shooting heavy weapons. Just 'cause he likes it. Is it expression of sex or “gender”?" Doing these things is an expression of cultural values of masculinity, therefore, it is an expression of gender. 2. I'm going to go out onto a limb and guess by your spelling that you are not American. (Realise was the tell. American English spells it with a 'z'. We also put periods and commas inside quotations, but I think the British way makes more sense.) That said, Americans did make alcohol illegal during the early part of the 20th century. The cultural norm shifted such that more than 50% of Americans thought alcohol was too dangerous and imposed their will on the remaining percentage. Tobacco may one day go the same way. The governing powers who represent the majority of Americans will make tobacco illegal. And just to demonstrate that cultural values make absolutely no sense sometimes, marijuana will become legal even though the smoke from it is just as dangerous as the smoke from tobacco. 3. There are biological differences between males and females beyond the obvious presence of reproductive organs. Before I had kids I would have argued that the psychological differences between men and women were a result of gender (meaning cultural formation) and not sex (meaning the physical differences). I am not quite as positive now, but as rocket357 said, I'd rather let my kids explore the options available rather than steer them. 4. Or perhaps I should just let you menfolk wax philosophically for a while while I run into the kitchen and make y'all a snack. (Or not. This code isn't going to cut itself, you know.)

    Posted 11-06-2013 at 02:14 PM by vmccord Updated 11-07-2013 at 10:34 AM by vmccord (fix punctuation error)

13. finally found a subject I am uniquely qualified to address. I am 60, have MS, and other health problems, disabled and an old hippy.Herb has been a green medicine for health matters for centuries if not thousands of yrs for humanity. In the early 1900's things changed, there is an awful lot of money to be made producing alcohol, taxes to be made from its sale and manufacture. AND you cannot grow a qt of whiskey in your back yard and avoid taxes, but you can with some Northern Lights! Herb is a much much better pain reliever than opiates. I know. Opiates are very extremely addicting, smoke, well, is not. Here in Missouri there were recently 2 bills HB688, and HB512 which were for the medicinal usage without penalty. The speaker of the house put the k bosh on that, no vote. As long as we have politicians with straw for brains we will have high taxes, nobomacare, no decriminalization of medicinal marijuana....lets face it...the idiots are in power and we cant do much about it but vote.

    Posted 11-06-2013 at 06:38 PM by graybeard19

14. 	Quote: Originally Posted by graybeard19 the idiots are in power and we cant do much about it but vote. Well said.
    	Posted 11-06-2013 at 06:43 PM by rocket357

15. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Ok, I'll bite. It's illegal to manufacture and consume drugs because a group of politicians decided it should be illegal. The reasoning behind making that decision is probably something along the lines of "statistically, people who consume drugs commit crimes to support their habit" or some-such. I don't know, so really, I'm curious to hear your theory. That was about what I wanted to read you say. Now, you said “but I also realize it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life”. And you conclude that government understands that if someone does something harmful to only himself (at first), sooner or later he will harm other people. So not caring how others live their own lifes is potentionally dangerous to you. And your family, because they are also people, like you, living close to where you live. So your position of “it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life” is wrong. Everyone should care about how their fellow compatriots live their lives. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Then we'll deal with alcohol. Same thing here except only govt doesn't regulate it as it should. You would say “it is NOT my place to care how much alcohol people around me consume, it's their own lives, not my business” and you'll think you're so right and so correct but if you think a bit further you'll realize that drunk people (for lives of whom you don't care) might harm you or your family when intoxicated. So you either care for both — others and your family — or for none. Third option seems very illogical. But those are just drugs and alcohol. Very crude cases/examples. There are wa-a-a-ay more subtle sins. But they all lead to the same consequences — harming people. And the only right attitude towards other people's lives is to be concerned.

    Posted 11-10-2013 at 06:29 AM by Mr. Alex Updated 11-10-2013 at 10:17 AM by Mr. Alex

16. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex So your position of “it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life” is wrong. Everyone should care about how their fellow compatriots live their lives. I didn't say I agreed with the government's assessment of the danger of drugs =) I believe that people are, for most cases, grown up and capable of making rational decisions. Sure, a drunk driver is a serious threat to other people...and so the government has levied laws to regulate drunk driving (below a certain blood-alcohol content, it is acceptable). Having a few too many and walking home, however, poses much less threat and even though it may carry *personal* legal liability, it is quite a bit less likely to result in an inter-personal issue (and if it does *then* it is an issue, but not before). You cannot simply levy laws against *potential* issues because something *might* happen. If that were the case, claw hammers would be illegal, as well as ink pens, any manner of rope, apples, computers, air, etc... What a sad world we would live in. If my neighbor owns a gun, I do not care. If he uses said gun to break into my house, he will meet his end at the hands of my gun...and the law here will not care one bit that I defended myself or that I continue to own a gun, even though I have proven that I am willing to take another human's life. Think about that. Context is important...and it's the portion you are overlooking.

    Posted 11-10-2013 at 10:48 PM by rocket357 Updated 11-10-2013 at 10:54 PM by rocket357

17. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 You cannot simply levy laws against *potential* issues because something *might* happen. If that were the case, claw hammers would be illegal, as well as ink pens, any manner of rope, apples, computers, air, etc... What a sad world we would live in. If my neighbor owns a gun, I do not care... You concentrate on material things. Owning a pen, a hammer or a gun is not a problem nor it is a possible threat to others. Because then you'll have to say that bare hands are also a threat. My main point was about immaterial things. For instance a TV. Owning a gun and learning to use it does not make you dangerous. Watching a TV, however, does. Because things shown on TV inject dangerous ideas into your mind and heart, especially if you start watching TV in a very young age. And then a gun in your hand becomes dangerous, but only because of things TV has shown you. That's why I gave you drugs example. You can't really harm people with drugs physically, like hitting them holding some drug in your hand like you would do it with a hammer. But taking drugs makes you immoral and this leads to harming other people with any tool you can find. And things like TV, bad music, foul mainstream culture, fake foul theories make you immoral just like drugs. All sins do it to people. So when I say “Your position of ‘it is NOT my place to judge how someone else chooses to live their own life’ is wrong. Everyone should care about how their fellow compatriots live their lives”, I'm not talking you should care about your neighbor having a pistol, but about your neighbor watching a TV and listening to immoral, foul music. About your neighbor drinking too much alcohol. About your neighbor's general immoral habits and behaviour. About your government forcing your compatriots to behave immorally and protecting immoral manners along with prohibiting righteousness. I'll also put “gender thories” here because these thories are mind damaging. And so on... To specify sexes: man is always a man and should feel and see himself as a man, just like it has always been in history. Woman is always a woman since she was born a woman. And there's no way a mentally healthy woman can feel as a man or any other “gender”. In fact, “genders” don't exist. And have never existed. No “roles” of sexes existed because “roles” make you think it's some kind of a game. Like a couple is playing a game and woman plays a role of oppression victim and a man is playing a role of tyrant. No, it's just how it always were and how it should be in normal healthy people — and it's not called “oppression”, “victim” or “tyranny”. And when a guy thinks that maybe he is a female by “gender”, that's waaaaay worse than a game. Just imagine. Say, 400 years ago, some country in Europe. Let's take Germany or Spain. Some young guy starts to say to his friends that he is not a man, but rather a woman in a man's body and tells them to treat him like a woman because he doesn't want to play this “man role”. Just imagine that! What would happen? I'm sure at first they'll just laugh and say it's a very silly joke. But if the guy continues to insist, they'd probably place him to hospital (of that time) for mentally sick. But noone seems to think about the question: has anything in our nature actually changed since then? We're just like we've been 400 years ago — men are men and women are women. But WHY do we now have “gender theories”? If it was a mental sickness 400 years ago, why is it a normal thing today? And in general, why some things that were sick back then are normal now? Doesn't it show something about today's us?

    Posted 11-15-2013 at 07:28 AM by Mr. Alex Updated 11-15-2013 at 11:44 AM by Mr. Alex

18. Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Alex If it was a mental sickness 400 years ago, why is it a normal thing today? And in general, why some things that were sick back then are normal now? Doesn't it show something about today's us? Yes, it shows that we have advanced as a race. We no longer believe that someone with "mental illness" is possessed by a demon and burn them at the stake for being so. All sin causes us to lose touch with God, right? If that statement holds true, then doesn't it follow that you should love your fellow man regardless of whatever hangups he/she is tangled up with? I know plenty of alcoholics and drug addicts and though I disagree with their chosen lifestyle I love them as human beings all the same. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? AND I DO pull them aside and voice my thoughts on their chosen lifestyle...then allow them to say "#$&%^ you, jerk...I don't want to hear another word out of you on that!" and I respect their wishes. I refuse to become the preacher on the street corner that no one listens to because their engrained sense of righteousness entitles them to demand others bend to their own beliefs. And if they come to me later on and say "hey, let's talk about this", I'm more than happy to stop what I'm doing and discuss it with them. I have agreed with you that I do not personally think certain lifestyles are normal, but I refuse to hate the individuals who choose to live that way. And I hold fast to my stance that it is none of my business telling people how to live. That is between them and God...I have no say in the topic. I may voice an opinion, but it is the *sinner's* responsibility to get their life right.

    Posted 11-16-2013 at 02:21 AM by rocket357

19. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 Yes, it shows that we have advanced as a race. Mental illness is an advantage? I have nothing to say to you on this one because if you really think it is so, it is beyond any possibility to explain it to you. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 All sin causes us to lose touch with God, right? Right. That means also losing touch with reality, losing sanity, losing understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, losing morals and human face. Losing touch with God leads to death. Mental death at first and physical second. Mental illness is a result of sins, thus a result of going away from God and losing touch with Him. And you call it "advancing". Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 If that statement holds true, then doesn't it follow that you should love your fellow man regardless of whatever hangups he/she is tangled up with? ... Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? Yes, you should love your fellow people regardless of what they're doing. And you should hate the sin. "Hate speech" towards sin is mandatory.

    Posted 11-16-2013 at 05:21 AM by Mr. Alex

20. Quote: Originally Posted by rocket357 We no longer believe that someone with "mental illness" is possessed by a demon... Sometimes they are. Demons and satan exist. Angels exist. And you can't really prove their existance like you would prove a mathematical theorem, but you also cannot prove otherwise. If you don't believe angels and demons exist, that doesn't mean you don't have faith. You have it. You believe they don't exist just like I believe (actually know) they exist. And atheism is also a religion. Also, you probably (most likely) think that those believing in angels' and demons' existance are dark outdated people living in a Stone Age who don't know it's 21'st century outside. It is not so because a lot of modern scientists — scientists of 20'th and 21'st centuries — are/were religious and believe(d) in God. Some of them are/were Christians. That means that even if you are extremely modern and "advanced" dude, doing science and making new scientific researches and discoveries, you can have Christian faith just like a dark man from, say, ninth century. That is because science and religion don't intersect with each other. (Actually they do but the way they do it will be difficult to explain and not everyone will accept it. You have to really know Christianity deeply to see that science and psychology actually proves Christianity's rightness.) What kills faith though are sins — not science. Again, telling you this from Christian asceticism (it's a Christian science). It is not computer science, or physics, or chemistry, or biology that kills faith. No matter how strange it may sound to some people, when one does sins (any sins), he loses ability to believe in God. The better a person is, the easier it is for him/her to have faith in God. So "advancing" in atheism actually means going futher into vices and sins, which damages human's soul and makes this human closer to demons. It is not modernity that laughs at this (because, as I said, modern scientists also have faith in God), it is immorality.

    Posted 11-16-2013 at 09:48 AM by Mr. Alex

rocket357

• Registered Mar 2007
• Location 127.0.0.1
• Posts 485
• Blog Entries 187

• Find Blog Entries by rocket357

  Containing Text: Search Titles Only

  Advanced Search
• Blog Categories

  Local Categories

  • OpenBSD
  • Kubernetes and Virtualization
  • Python
  • PostgreSQL Stuff
  • Microsoft Rants
  • Uncategorized
• Recent Comments

  • u-boot is infuriating by rocket357
  • The loss of an office by rocket357
  • dnscrypt-proxy on docker on kubernetes on Raspberry Pis by rocket357
  • The little outlet that couldn't by rocket357
  • This...this should *never* happen by cynwulf
• Recent Entries

  • On-prem kubernetes, Part 8
  • On-prem Kubernetes, Part 7
  • On-prem kubernetes, Part 6.5
  • On-prem kubernetes, Part 6
  • On-prem Kubernetes, Part 5
• Recent Visitors

  • davisonja
  • dreadbit
  • jr_bob_dobbs
  • milestop1948
  • rkelsen
  • rokytnji
  • rpittala
  • thewegger
  • zaprocvat
  • zeebra
• Tag Cloud

  kubernetes linux networking openbsd virtualization

  Search by Tag

• Archive
  <      April 2024
  Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
  24	25	26	27	28	29	30
  31	1	2	3	4	5	6
  7	8	9	10	11	12	13
  14	15	16	17	18	19	20
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	1	2	3	4