LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-12-2019, 10:29 AM   #61
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
Because you ignore context in posts and use generalisations
Women are biologically more valuable than men, it's a common pattern throughout the animal kingdom, too.
In some speciest the males flat out die after mating. Humans, of course, are a lot more complex so it doesn't really make sense to just flat out keel over, but, if there is to be an inbalance in males or females, then you'll pretty much always want more females.
If there is some extreme danger that would kill anyone anyway, then, yeah the point is moot, but it's just more easy to balance out populations if an inbalance starts with more women than men.
That's why war and stuff didn't really stop human expansion, if there were a surplus of men though, then that would probably have caused more trouble, that's why this situation rarely happens, anyway.
I can't think of many situations where some event causes more men than women to be 'left over', unless some illness or antagonist specifically targets them, or if they get sent into dangerous situations for no good reason.

Etc.
Contexts are not entirely irrelevant, but they're just dressing in the end.
What I talk about is the hard truth underneath, extreme imbalance doesn't happen in nature, so my illustrative example wasn't really good for reflecting this aside from the statement (which still holds true, all things being 'equal' heh, more women and less men are advantageous even in an extreme case, even if this case is highly improbable or unnatural and in 'everyday life' rarely happens outside of war, and even then, there's usually more civilians than soldiers).

You can use layers around this all you want, those are a lot more fragile than, again, basic biological principles.
It has little to do with stereotypes or behavior patterns, but simple and actual biological facts.
One million men and ten women would be extremely potent in protecting those ten women, but who would get to procreate with them? That speaks trouble.
One million women and ten men? Women can still fight, you know? Even if only twenty five percent of those women actively bred children, it would still VASTLY outclass the other example.
Again, extreme and not natural, but no less true. Both are important, but biologically speaking, fertile women are worth more than men. That's why throughout history they were rarely sent to die, were spared first (well, their life anyway, not their freedom, necessarilY), etc.
It wasn't uncommon for marauders to just kill the males and take the women for themselves, even though the men are strong and could fight.
Why should they, though? Instead they just took the women to breed more marauders, etc.

I realize that there is little recourse for that, though, but it's also the core of my belief that people can make a difference. If I were so inclined, I could do this forever and you'd have to think hard about coming up with all sorts of dressing to override this fact, but I could just come back to this and be 100% right every time.

It's all a matter of tenacity, which, admittedly is difficult, but that also doesn't make the fact that tenacity is key a falsehood.

P.S.:
Gender Equality is still a sham, and the behavior of women (and men) reflects this. It's a wash.
Inequality is not that high in the west (I think pay gaps and stuff are just a result of how awful job interviews and everything are. You know the question about "how high of a wage do you consider fair for you?". I don't think I'd be too crazy to claim that it might be easier to strongarm women (who probably don't want to argue much) into accepting a lowball price, but that's just my guess)
But despite the pretty high equality, you still find very few women doing body crushing work on oil rigs and co. They are allowed to do this, of course, because of GE, but it's not exactly popular with the ladies.
To risk life and limb on some rickety platform full of things that kill you in blow, like that steel cable under high tension over there, oh, it snapped. Well, he was a good man, someone call his wife, you two over there, grab his halves and drag them away.

I'm sure I don't have to elaborate too much on this point, not the graphic doom, but the tendency for the average equalized woman to not work in such fields.

Last edited by Geist; 09-12-2019 at 10:38 AM.
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:21 PM   #62
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
@Geist
You are either clueless or trolling. Your posts are other end of extreme you go against. And no, Gender equality is not sham just because we are born different aka with or without something between legs. Also you not only ignore context but use BIAS in your last post.

And it was|is called Chivalry for boys to protect girls and newborns.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-12-2019 at 02:28 PM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:30 PM   #63
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,463
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
Women are biologically more valuable than men, it's a common pattern throughout the animal kingdom, too.
In some speciest the males flat out die after mating. Humans, of course, are a lot more complex so it doesn't really make sense to just flat out keel over, but, if there is to be an inbalance in males or females, then you'll pretty much always want more females.
If there is some extreme danger that would kill anyone anyway, then, yeah the point is moot, but it's just more easy to balance out populations if an inbalance starts with more women than men.
That's why war and stuff didn't really stop human expansion, if there were a surplus of men though, then that would probably have caused more trouble, that's why this situation rarely happens, anyway.
I can't think of many situations where some event causes more men than women to be 'left over', unless some illness or antagonist specifically targets them, or if they get sent into dangerous situations for no good reason.

Etc.
Contexts are not entirely irrelevant, but they're just dressing in the end.
What I talk about is the hard truth underneath, extreme imbalance doesn't happen in nature, so my illustrative example wasn't really good for reflecting this aside from the statement (which still holds true, all things being 'equal' heh, more women and less men are advantageous even in an extreme case, even if this case is highly improbable or unnatural and in 'everyday life' rarely happens outside of war, and even then, there's usually more civilians than soldiers).

You can use layers around this all you want, those are a lot more fragile than, again, basic biological principles.
It has little to do with stereotypes or behavior patterns, but simple and actual biological facts.
One million men and ten women would be extremely potent in protecting those ten women, but who would get to procreate with them? That speaks trouble.
One million women and ten men? Women can still fight, you know? Even if only twenty five percent of those women actively bred children, it would still VASTLY outclass the other example.
Again, extreme and not natural, but no less true. Both are important, but biologically speaking, fertile women are worth more than men. That's why throughout history they were rarely sent to die, were spared first (well, their life anyway, not their freedom, necessarilY), etc.
It wasn't uncommon for marauders to just kill the males and take the women for themselves, even though the men are strong and could fight.
Why should they, though? Instead they just took the women to breed more marauders, etc.

I realize that there is little recourse for that, though, but it's also the core of my belief that people can make a difference. If I were so inclined, I could do this forever and you'd have to think hard about coming up with all sorts of dressing to override this fact, but I could just come back to this and be 100% right every time.

It's all a matter of tenacity, which, admittedly is difficult, but that also doesn't make the fact that tenacity is key a falsehood.

P.S.:
Gender Equality is still a sham, and the behavior of women (and men) reflects this. It's a wash.
Inequality is not that high in the west (I think pay gaps and stuff are just a result of how awful job interviews and everything are. You know the question about "how high of a wage do you consider fair for you?". I don't think I'd be too crazy to claim that it might be easier to strongarm women (who probably don't want to argue much) into accepting a lowball price, but that's just my guess)
But despite the pretty high equality, you still find very few women doing body crushing work on oil rigs and co. They are allowed to do this, of course, because of GE, but it's not exactly popular with the ladies.
To risk life and limb on some rickety platform full of things that kill you in blow, like that steel cable under high tension over there, oh, it snapped. Well, he was a good man, someone call his wife, you two over there, grab his halves and drag them away.

I'm sure I don't have to elaborate too much on this point, not the graphic doom, but the tendency for the average equalized woman to not work in such fields.
Oh, the survival of the species argument.
Like humanity's evolution in the past millenia hasn't been about going beyond that.
True gender (not sex) equality is possible; I personally believe it's possible for society as a whole.
Of course there's always going to be people flat out against it, or saying "It's still not 100% equal, so we might just as well give up and behave like animals", but I don't buy any of that.
 
Old 09-13-2019, 05:44 AM   #64
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
{...}True gender (not sex) equality is possible; I personally believe it's possible for society as a whole.{...}
Exactly but most girls and boys prefer it oldschool not newschool by choice. Kinda like Marilyn Monroe quote
Quote:
“I don’t mind living in a man’s world as long as I can be a woman in it.”
And i also kinda still support Chivalry. I feel bit disgusted to see fragile yet beautiful girl bodies being ruined by workjobs that require neutral boy muscle more but But BUT..if they truly want and can do it..it becomes their problem. Free will and all that. It works viceversa. If we boys want go hunt or other hobbies it also becomes our problem. I believe in choices. We all learn by own experience trial&error mostly. My blood only boils when it becomes injustice(force|trickery) and i can do something about it.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-13-2019 at 05:48 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-13-2019, 06:16 AM   #65
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
@Geist
You are either clueless or trolling.
I'm neither. I'm serious and I am fully clued in on basic biological facts regarding human and sexual dimorphism.


Gender erquality, also, remains newspeak, or at the very least is too broad of a stroke just to be distilled into this kind of term.
It doesn't have to be like that, though.

"We have embraced a stance on ethics, law, and politics that does not favor one gender over the other."
That's better, but, in my opinion.
"We support gender equality."
Not so good, because they're intrinsically different and "gender equality" is way too generic, but used as a complete term way too often, instead of something that is added to something else.


Also
>free will, if women want to work body ruining jobs, then they should

Well, that's all fine and dandy, until doing anything else is being vilified or otherwise has reduced incentives, with more harmful alternatives being incentivized and glorified.

And that's still the more positive way, sometimes people have very little choice.
For example, something that isn't about genders, but still affects everyone.

The fractional reserve banking system, where basically the very bedrock of a nations money comes from a loan (usually bonds and stuff, I'm not going to go in depth here because my point can be made even without that).
So, in a nation that has 1000 monies in circulation, and those monies are all sourced from a loan, that has interest, let's say 50%.
How would the nation be able to pay back 1500 monies if only 1000 are in circulation?

Every citizen could be a master finance guru, and it would still be impossible to not go bankrupt.
It's another extreme example, of course, and if reality was this clean cut, then people would catch on more quickly.
It's of course more subtle and insidious than that, but basically that's how it is.

So what if a woman has two choices. Starve to death or work in the body break mines?
Well theres things like begging, etc, but that has to come from somehwere too, still.

What if people glorified women that worked in the body break mine? What if people jeered and vilified women who are stay at home mothers?
Same for men, many bad incentives, etc. Sure, there's free will, but it can be guided.

Stockholm syndrome for example, as well, it's not exactly rational, but it happens.

But yeah, I don't think gender equality is a good deal, neither as a word (well word pair and just used like that) , or as a goal beyond some very superficial things.


@ondoho
>Like humanity's evolution in the past millenia hasn't been about going beyond that.

I think human evolution has gone in a bad direction, why else would people who claim that we live in "much better times" have less children, for example?
Less children because "fun" is so fragile that a little baby can destroy it?
That resources are so scarce and unreliable that a little baby can destroy them?
People so stressed out on a baseline level that they don't want children to live through that kind of reality?

Et cetera.
I don't think we live in better times, and I don't think "equality" is the solution, in fact, it might be the cause.
I prefer a removal of stigmas for people who are impaired and have special needs, and the removal of stigma for mental illnesses and the curing of that.
Beyond that, a society structured toward the strength of the sexes while reducing their weaknesses.
This is not achievable with equal treatment.
If there were goverment mandated fitness camps for the strengthening of the people, then the men would either be below the peak they could be nurtured and trained for, or women would be suffering harsher regiments than they should, if they were trained equally.

I think it is very prudent to keep basics in mind and don't mess with them, and try and bring abberations back to them, instead of fragile layers of patchwork over there, where people have to perform doublethink all the time to keep things somewhat close to a working order.
 
Old 09-13-2019, 07:05 AM   #66
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
I'm neither. I'm serious and I am fully clued in on basic biological facts regarding human and sexual dimorphism.
{...}
Also
>free will, if women want to work body ruining jobs, then they should

Well, that's all fine and dandy, until doing anything else is being vilified or otherwise has reduced incentives, with more harmful alternatives being incentivized and glorified.

And that's still the more positive way, sometimes people have very little choice.
For example, something that isn't about genders, but still affects everyone.

The fractional reserve banking system, where basically the very bedrock of a nations money comes from a loan (usually bonds and stuff, I'm not going to go in depth here because my point can be made even without that).
So, in a nation that has 1000 monies in circulation, and those monies are all sourced from a loan, that has interest, let's say 50%.
How would the nation be able to pay back 1500 monies if only 1000 are in circulation?

Every citizen could be a master finance guru, and it would still be impossible to not go bankrupt.
It's another extreme example, of course, and if reality was this clean cut, then people would catch on more quickly.
It's of course more subtle and insidious than that, but basically that's how it is.

So what if a woman has two choices. Starve to death or work in the body break mines?
Well theres things like begging, etc, but that has to come from somehwere too, still.

What if people glorified women that worked in the body break mine? What if people jeered and vilified women who are stay at home mothers?
Same for men, many bad incentives, etc. Sure, there's free will, but it can be guided.{...}
You do not write like you would be expert but troll or clueless. And stop generalizing. You only pick extreme situations. Of course if we talk about what happens if ALL girls choose to do boy jobs and|or viceversa then it becomes problem. But if some portion of them only choose, outside ultimatium example(that is not choice btw) then it is okey..and girls also glorify boys just like boys glorify girls. It is unavoidable. Basic human need : feel worthy of attention and care.

p.s.Documentary Blood in the Mobile and can probably find more related material about human exploitation. How come when using phone or computer not worry about it? I do care, just can't do anything about it yet.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-13-2019 at 07:07 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old 09-13-2019, 02:30 PM   #67
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,463
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
but most girls and boys prefer it oldschool not newschool by choice.
Not around here where I live.
Not saying I adore teenagers: totally spoiled, destroyed by social media and whatever other online hype, angsty about everything...
But definitely equalising gender roles.
 
Old 09-13-2019, 02:30 PM   #68
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,463
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372
For once, I agree with Arcane.

Last edited by ondoho; 09-16-2019 at 02:43 PM.
 
Old 09-14-2019, 03:14 AM   #69
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
You do not write like you would be expert but troll or clueless. And stop generalizing. You only pick extreme situations.
I'm generalizing? With extreme situations?

What is this sorcery of words you wield?

Are you perhaps the troll?

P.S.:
You might really be it, since you yourself speak about outliers.
"It's okay if only some of them do it" yeah, because that itself is an extreme, an outlier, but on the actual wrong end.
If that were the norm then we wouldn't exist as a species as we are existing as we are. It would be different. Very much so.

You are arguing for your point, with negative outliers that would destroy the human species as it is today, if your ideas were retroactively put in place.
Meanwhile, my extremes show off the truths of the general idea, the norm. it's an extreme form of the norm, if you want.
"Perfection is when you can't take any more away", etc. Wheras your situation requires a whole lot more clauses and stipulations.
It's more fragile.

So, yeah, not the overall spirit of my words as you might want to present them.

@ondoho
May you enjoy your great pride in being wrong.

"Yeah, Geist, you're wrong, as long as we keep toeing this very strange line where we can put wrenches into a machine at just the right treshold so it doesn't all collapse immediately. Which means we are right! Saved for posterity, suckah!"
"See, it's fine to throw a few women into the meatgrinder, our system is so big and bloated that this particular context makes us right."

Righto. Well then let's hope that status remains, even though our society itself is an outlier.
May it never collapse, so you may stay right indefinetely.

I'd wish you eternal, or at least very long lasting life, so you can enjoy being right.
But I have this general ...I don't know, 'feeling' that many decisions in this world (which, of course is better than ever) are made with very little thought because people only live about 80 years.

I wonder how society would be, if we all lived to a thousand from now on. Just to see who will end up culling the crows from eating them too much in hindsight.

Me? The traditionalist? (Because tradition means, tried and true to work)
You both? The "Has never worked in history of mankind but is totally good" approach?
Nyehmhmmm.. Yeah..don't know. But I wish you luck maintaining your "See, I'm so fat, I can eat this quantity of poison, and not die! Checkmate!" society.

No, I don't, I fight this kind of BS. And it really is that.

Last edited by Geist; 09-14-2019 at 03:36 AM.
 
Old 09-14-2019, 09:03 AM   #70
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
I'm generalizing? With extreme situations?

What is this sorcery of words you wield?

Are you perhaps the troll? {...}
LOL. Ok you then are not troll but fake expert about gender equality. Cause gender equality is not sex identicality. First one is possible but second is not.
Just look at Sweden for example. They have girl (truck) drivers, and other professions, that drive better than most boys.

Your curtain posts are wierd to understand and they only contain BIAS POV. No study..no valid source..nothing..apart from your idea that gender equalism is scam despite it being real deal everywhere else.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-14-2019 at 09:57 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-14-2019, 02:12 PM   #71
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
LOL. Ok you then are not troll but fake expert about gender equality. Cause gender equality is not sex identicality. First one is possible but second is not.
Just look at Sweden for example. They have girl (truck) drivers, and other professions, that drive better than most boys.

Your curtain posts are wierd to understand and they only contain BIAS POV. No study..no valid source..nothing..apart from your idea that gender equalism is scam despite it being real deal everywhere else.
I call gender equality a sham because it's a straight up lie. Genders are not equal, so gender equality is impossible. Ever.
You can treat different genders equally but that is entirely different to "gender equality fullstop".

Which is one of the points I was making, it's a bad term and should be attached to something else.
"The votes of men and women have identical weight in our system of democracy, we do not favor any over the other."
Someone might now say: "See! That's gender equality!" but, no, gender equality means: The equality of genders, which is not a thing in itself. It really isn't.
Just because I treat something equally doesn't mean it's equal in itself.

The fact that you refer to gender equalism just shows how fragile gender equality is as a standalone term.
Equalism is better, but I still consider it too distilled, makes it wishy washy.
Most of us don't have rapid onset destructo cancer that kills us in seconds, no need to turn language into a spoken stenotype.
Be descriptive. Not everything has to be a little contracted nugget, and I'm German, we love our contracted words.


So, yeah, I continue to hold "gender equality" as a sham, I don't wanna beat the orwellian analogies forever, so call it whatever you want, as long as it pertains to BS, cause, again, that's what it is.

As for the bias and no studies, etc.
I think human reproduction has been studied quite a bit, or are you truly surprised or baffled when I say:
Five men and ten women can, on average, in a year, create more children, than ten men and five women.

And yes I know there are outliers, etc, but the 'norm' of one is basically built into the flesh of people itself, the two breasts thing on the average human.

Since humans usually get one or two babies at once, two teats are enough, evolutionary speaking, four would be overkill (at least for babies, I'm sure some people can find some uses for extra mammaries ), so they're not there.
I mean, okay, it sounds like fun to study that, but ...it's also kind of unneeded, it's possible. We could conduct a whole bunch of studies, and, as it stands at this point in time, most, if not all of the averages would still occur, and these averages are inequal in the sexes.
(Women getting smaller pelvis canals is kind of worrying though)

Even things people seldomly loose sleep over, like how the ribcage of a woman is generally shorter than a mans ribcage, complete with a different shape of the inverted V under the sternum, you know, that hole, don't know the term, but it's different.
These differences, though, have a nontrivial effect on physical capabilities, lever forces, muscle attachments, etc. Just like how womanly pelvises give them a bit of a sway when walking because it pushes the distance of the legs, too.

Heck, even in our bodies, things can get pretty inequal despite some things basically being the same thing.
Elbow and knee joints, for example. The elbow doesn't have an "elbow cap" but the knee does.
Why? Because due to how the bones and muscles and physics, a knee without a kneecap would be severely impaired in its ability to function, that little cap thing gives it a boost as a pulley.
The elbow works fine without it.

Anyway, my biggest point is, the world is a bit out of reign, a lot of BS and eye wool has been introduced. Luckily, as I said in my very first post, these things are just that.
They are rickety, tenous constructs that seem very bulky and robust (because its easy to just glaze over and go along with them), but going to simple basics is incredibly powerful, because the basics work and don't require countless bends and stipulations.
And, yes, I used extreme example, but they were examples of extreme simplicity, the robustness is pretty high if I tune them down just a little bit.

Meanwhile, things like "gender equality" require a boatload of apologetics and stipulations, and contexts that are equally convoluted.

"Women can totally lift huge loads safely if we feed them brawn-os, derived from a special oat cultivated from cow droppings who have been vaccinated with a certain compound that uses almost inert, 'gene' edited viruses which both act as an antibody generator and a genetic trojan horse to reencode the pineal gland of the bovine which in turn somehow influences the gut bacteria, but only if we supplement the feed with this specific strain of hairless 'stinging nettles' which is a patented product of urti-corps, which has the serendipideliciousness that their shareholders, who all grew up fans of a book about plants published between 2011 and 2014 and therefore all decided to support that corporation."

Etc. Yeah, okay, I guess I would have to concede.
And, sure, that looks like a strawman on the outside, and probably is a little bit of one since I'm being silly, but just look at how society has shifted so quickly in a few hundred years, are we even ready for it?

Skinner box like training regiments for soldiers, who used to not shoot to kill in the past, unless they were either a bit of a sociopath (or saw their squad as extended families), have made them extremely quick to react and kill with those pop up 'bad guy' courses that are timed and rewarded for snap decision and dispatching of the enemy.
This raised the shoot to kill percentage up to basically "happens all the time", because it gets drilled into them, enemy shows up, you pop a cap in their bumbum.

What has not changed is the psychological effect, though. The trained soldier will waste you, no problem, a crack shot, bang, yer dead. Didn't even hesitate, like a reflex.
But then some time later they mull it over. They killed you, they killed me. They killed both of us, and what if that soldier would have been in the "We shoot to rout and intimidate" camp?
Now that soldier is a killer, cue the PTSD and guilt and therapy.

Killer equality was achieved, they all shoot to kill now :P but is it good? Nyehhnn dunno.
But maybe we can train that away, too, or some drug. Just pile on the patches. Just like society. Just pile on the patches and the nonsense, because (not so) ironically...as long as the 'normies' are still the norm, with their "why do these dumb breeders still pop out children" shenanigans, keeping things running, it looks like the nonsense works out!

But, yeah, I don't think that's a good direction to go to. Once again, I strongly believe that we should go a little less crazy, and simply de-stigmatize abberations but at the same time give them the means to become normal.

For some reason that seems to be the worst thing one can say... like that makes it impossible to be happy, or something. Pointing to some badness as rationalization why traditionalism isn't good.
"Ugh, my mom and dad fight all the time and they're so old fashioned UGHHHH, screw that!" when the old fashioned maybe isn't the reason why they're fighting, or are insufferable grumps, etc.

Especially if not all of the past is created equal. For some time, qite a long time, women were looked down upon as second rate citizen, tops.
But then, if you go back enough, you also get things like:
The number 13 is lucky because it was part of ancient European (at least in the Germanic/Norse regions) calendars which were based on the menstrual cycle.
Or:
Yggdrasil, the world tree, is actually a placenta, Odin is not a god, but part of ourselves, our own ness, and our ancestry that manifests after hanging around the tree for 9 "days".
Or how the "irminsul" is a stylized set of ovaries, complete with womb and vaginal canal (look that thing up if you want).
Etc.
Wehre people cherished women, put them into esteemed places of cultural teachings, etc (basically the STEM from back then :P)

Even today these things shine through.
Ge Bur tstag (Birtday in German)
Burr, Bur, Bör (fun fact, if you pronounce Bör Germanishly, you will find that it sound a bit like the 'Bir' in Birthday, and that's not a coincidence, either) means son, birth.
Birth and birthday (Geburt, the norwegian names for that are even more telling) are derived from Bur, a norse "god" (only in stories are they 'humanlike', otherwise they're aspects of life, like "Blood/Flame". Lodr/Lödr (we still use "lodern" for a flame that burns bright and voraciously in German today, yes, even in modern high German)

Burial mounds were used as effigies for wombs, in fact (get ready for some more things we still do today, even in a lessened way) after the first pregnancy, when a child is born from its mother, it's just a vessel, not fully human.
From age 1 to 6 they are just that, vessels, and during that time they are raised and get aquainted with some ancestor they will 'reincarnate as' (complete with their name and accrued honor) this reincarnation starts at 7 years, when the milk teeth are properly falling out and the permanent teeth come in, a sign that the second pregnancy is coming to an end and the ancestor is now manifesting properly.
This goes to 14 and then ultimately ends at 21.
(In the middle ages 7, 14 and 21 were still big milestones, and today in Germanic countries (yeah the US is mainly Germanic) 21 is still the 'real deal maturation' )

Etc, its all related to birth, rebirth, and continuing that cycle, so why not worship women for starting it all and keeping it going? Exactly.
(It's also the reason why we name children after grandparents and whatnot even today, that's actually not an intrinsically human habit, certainly not really Biblical, for example, a lot of unique names during lineages there).

It's also the reason why we keep names on gravestones, to remember, etc but I am super duper digressing.

Anyway, my point, not all pasts are created equally either.
Imagine being a woman, and being actually regarded highly for being that. Not forced into, but celebrated.
Some might have a problem with that I bet, especially today, where the mantra is "It's all random." and I guess genders are a bit random, if they are not then I don't know how the body decides it.
But at the very least being born somewhere is rarely random, your parents probably had a plan for going where they were going and doing what they were doing.

Anyway, inequality can be fun. Why not embrace it? A solution is to simply celebrate the differences, why make everything mush when we don't even start out equal to beging with?

Et cetera.

But enough for this post, yikes.

Last edited by Geist; 09-14-2019 at 02:19 PM. Reason: some typos, probably haven't caught them all
 
Old 09-14-2019, 03:28 PM   #72
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
I call gender equality a sham because it's a straight up lie. Genders are not equal, so gender equality is impossible. Ever.
You can treat different genders equally but that is entirely different to "gender equality fullstop".
{...}
But enough for this post, yikes.
No it is not lie. Gender equality is not same as Sex equality. Adam and Eve had different stuff between legs for a reason. But in terms of purpose in life this quote is invalid and outdated.
Quote:
Women belong to kitchen, Men belong to coal mines.
They are free to choose any path.

Yea enough of lolsense nonsense. You ignore what is written.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-14-2019 at 03:33 PM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-15-2019, 08:11 AM   #73
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,463
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372Reputation: 3372
@Geist: Gender ≠ Sex. Wrap your head around it.

I was speaking about gender, not sex.
 
Old 09-16-2019, 11:21 AM   #74
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 103

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
It's a complete lie, though. If you treat something equally then that doesn't mean it's equal in itself.

>Women belong in the kitchen
I didn't say that, plus, a lot of chefs are male.

What I did say was that women used to be held in incredibly high esteem because they were able to give birth to new life, and were also playing a huge role in the continuation of culture.
You are the one who ignores what is written, and you remain wrong and holding on to lies.
There is no gender equality, humans are sexually dimorphic with extreme repercussions.

A woman that chooses anything but childbirth, if she is capable of doing so, immedialy goes into the realm of "man with lesser physical abilities". Why hamstring your own strength? It's the most defining thing!
And seeing how so many women today do quadruple backflips of disgust and fear when this topic is brought up, I'd even go as far that women who have children are stronger than any female MMA fighter or soldier or coalminer.

@ondoho
>Gender != sex

Gender == sex.

In case you want to bring up trans people, or me being transphobic after reading onwards:

There are none, none that fall under the sexual/gender change, anyway.

I have yet to come across anyone who successfully transitioned into the other sex.
I've come across men who transitioned into eunuchs who keep popping pills, or women with severe self mutilation, even to the extent of self sterilization, who also keep popping pills.
(so much for a transition, a transition implies a constant state afterwards, a chronically ill person who has to keep eating medicine did not transition into a cured person.)

I have yet to see anyone who actually changed chromosomes, skeletal structure and everything else sexual dimorphism in humans is about.
I know it's a contentious topic, but that's only because people keep lying obstinately, both to themselves and others.

There are no transsexuals or transgenders, there are tragic figures who harm themselves because they believe they have insight into how the other sex 'feels', which is strange since so many people don't even know how someone of their own gender feels, or anyone really.

And I'm sure you'll bristle at that, but that's just how it is. "The feel right after they've done it"
I guess someone who suffers from pica or self harm who feels "right" when there's a clump of hair in the stomach or scars riddling the extremeties.

Also, their suicide rate is incredibly high, even without bullying or whatever, there's the fabled studies on that.
(Plus, a lot of them turn into gaudy 'cishet stereotypes' of the sex they are trying to emulate, which makes me wonder if a man or a woman really can look like the other sex and be considered 'that'.
As in, if a woman who doesn't change anything about her body and proclaims she is a male, and a woman who completely changes herself into a stereotypical man and proclaims she's male, then what is a male? A feeling? No, clearly both are valid, right? They're both valid, one believes a man can look fully feminine, veluptous and womanly, the other says "I don't think this is a real male body, and I am a male" and then gets herself cut up. Why? She already lived in a perfectly male body, as demonstrated by the voluptous man before her. Right? )

You are continuing a sham, self deceit and deceit of others, as well as degradation of language, needlessly.
Sure, many people do it, but that doesn't make it right.

And, once again, I don't have to do much here. If you want to keep on arguing now, then you must do a dance about chromosomes and whatnot, meanwhile I don't have to.
Millions of years of human evolution and successful continuation of the species stands behind my words, even if you strip everything else away, society, status, etc.
The way I stand behind works. Your "sex != gender" one, does not, not if people mutilate themselves, anyway.

A woman who took out her womb and ovaries, had her external genitalia sewn shut and grafted a flesh cylinder on the front with a little sack underneath filled with silicon beanbags cannot impregnate a woman.
A man who chopped off his genitalia and gets a flesh canal that never stops wanting to grow shut cannot bear a child to a man, especially the aforementioned kind.

No matter how many hormones either eat, this is because they did not transition into the opposite sex, which, when occurring naturally, has the abilities they lack, so, by definition, no transition into their gender happened.

You can keep lying about that if your want, but it doesn't change reality. Especially if aliens landed and seared off everyones flesh, Lady Charming, former male MMA champion, now a skeleton that walks four more steps before laying there forever, will get sexed as male upon inspection, despite having "transitioned into a woman" twenty years ago.

Why would you want to be on this position?

Why wouldn't you want to be on my position?

If I had the ability to cure a man or a woman who are equipped with a perfectly functioning body of their sex, but think they are the other and think about mutilating themsleves, I would.
It's ridiculous to think that they couldn't be happy as 'regular folk' especially with the added ability to start a family and have children they can hold to themselves. Warm little treasures that signify the continuation of their bloodline, and even support if they are raised well, so they don't have to be tormented by some callous nurse in a senior citizen nursery because they know they have nobody else to turn to.

What if "Oh, you've got gender dysphoria, poor thing, don't worry this has been treatable since three decades now " or "Bro, no worries man, you're gay, that means you're de facto infertile because where you want to go into, there's no babies to be made, but we've had the means to treat you for ages now, it's no big deal!"

What if they actually liked it? They wouldn't know right now, because that doesn't exist, and probably will never exist because the path of healing gets shamed and blamed, and their tragic path of bloodline ending self mutilation is hailed and empowered, because any depression they exibit must be from gender confusion and not because the world is pretty crappy due to the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF LIARS about now.

You are standing in the way of healing them, reigning them back from a small abberation, who knows, maybe it's a tiny tiny defect somewhere, no biggy, something completely bening otherwise that dispels all of their confusion and they can live normally with a healthy body.
I'm not. If I had it my way I would celebrate the strengths of the differences between the genders and nurture these strengths. And they really are strengths, case in point, again, women who shield their eyes and stumble backwards like vampires in the sunlight if they read something about 'having children' and angry misled men who want to have femmebots and artificial wombs because "women are garbage" and other dumb stuff.
As if making a child in a womb is the whole deal, it's a big deal, yes, but the child will be raised in a lopsided manner.

Etc. It's foolish, for no good reason either. Man, people get cut up and mutilated into complete sterility over this (READ THAT TEN TIMES OUT LOUD SO YOU WAKE UP), on top of the lack of traditions and culture in general, now we have tragic people who can't ever hold their own offspring in their arms and have nothing to talk about other than pop culture.
"Oh this is just like how obi wan would have done it" etc, tragic.

De-stigmatize these flaws, work with the healthy parts people have and reduce the unhealthy parts, not the other way around.
Don't smoosh everything into equality, because we are not at all equal, unless we take the lowest common denominator and that one always drifts downwards, bell curves and all that.
If we take the lowest common denominator of right now and make that equality, then over time it really will become the average 'naturally', but that is then subject to aberrations again, and we'll have to adjust it downwards, once more, repeat.

It's foolish, stop with the lies, start with the healing.

Last edited by Geist; 09-16-2019 at 11:27 AM.
 
Old 09-16-2019, 03:04 PM   #75
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
It's a complete lie, though. If you treat something equally then that doesn't mean it's equal in itself.

>Women belong in the kitchen
I didn't say that, plus, a lot of chefs are male.

What I did say was that women used to be held in incredibly high esteem because they were able to give birth to new life, and were also playing a huge role in the continuation of culture.
You are the one who ignores what is written, and you remain wrong and holding on to lies.
There is no gender equality, humans are sexually dimorphic with extreme repercussions.

A woman that chooses anything but childbirth, if she is capable of doing so, immedialy goes into the realm of "man with lesser physical abilities". Why hamstring your own strength? It's the most defining thing!
And seeing how so many women today do quadruple backflips of disgust and fear when this topic is brought up, I'd even go as far that women who have children are stronger than any female MMA fighter or soldier or coalminer.
{...}
How many times will we have to type that gender and sex is not the same?

Actually your curtain posts are saying that "through flowers".

And they still are held in "high esteem"(whatever that means).

That is oldschool thinking..which is still valid but outdated..newschool improves upon oldschool and allows update improvements. Both boys and girls can decide if they want drive truck or shoot weapon for example.
 
  


Reply

Tags
life


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Libreboot C201 from Minifree is really really really ridiculously open source jeremy Linux - News 0 12-09-2016 10:51 AM
Does it really make a difference to use make -jK instead only "make" while compiling? angel'le Linux - General 1 04-26-2014 01:14 AM
World of warcraft for Linux.(This is a forum for people who want world of warcraft..) darkstarbyte Linux - Games 17 09-05-2011 02:30 AM
How can I get people to use Linux? I'm bad at converting people over. Mr. Hill Linux - Newbie 31 10-19-2008 09:16 AM
Really, really Weird trouble with make (make error 2) flyeater SUSE / openSUSE 5 06-20-2005 12:05 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration