Okay. Right now I’ve got about 20 books in a queue that has not budged in a while so I’ll take a pass on it for now, thanks.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Right now I’ve got about 20 books in a queue that has not budged in a while so I’ll take a pass on it for now, thanks. [/quote]
Blasphemy
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Okay. Right now I’ve got about 20 books in a queue that has not budged in a while so I’ll take a pass on it for now, thanks. [/quote]
Blasphemy[/quote]
Trust me, I would love to have the free time to make it move like a kaiten-zushi track
(says Cortes as he bangs away on the T-Nation forums, heh).
Episode 62: David Moscrop - YouTube!
I have found the queen of manginas.
I am very female about my reasons for watching this too, the emotional tingles as he takes me cereally?, to disgust, then back to hilarity are breathtaking.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
“Women are never seen as attractive and competent?” What fucking world do you live in pal? I work with women every single day who have degrees and are very attractive. I am currently dating a woman with a much higher education than you or I will ever have. She is competent and attractive. Where do you come up with these generalizations?
[/quote]
…
Lie much?[/quote]
I’m dating her. She isn’t my girlfriend. There’s an obvious distinction Raj. Have you not dated women without being committed in the way that GF would imply?[/quote]
In the MLB thread you told me your girlfriend’s mom had a master in economics. I assumed this girl you were dating was your girlfriend.
Maybe you’re just not accustom to people actually paying attention to what you say?[/quote]
LOL.[/quote]
That was MONTHS ago.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Yes, they do. The toys clearly create the impression that a woman’s place in society is in the kitchen and their appearance should be geared toward pleasing men. Women’s place in society is wherever they want to go. It isn’t predetermined by societal norms. Women are not and should not be made to feel abnormal or like a statistical outlier or whatever if they want to strive for something more than being a housewife.
It creates the impression that women who strive for something more, who strive to make their own way in life independent of men, are somehow different than a “normal” woman. This sort of thing happened at a HUGE level throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries. When you have countries like England that, up until the early years of the 20th century, allowed men to beat the shit out of their wives for not having sex often enough or for striving to work (yes, men had the right to beat their wives if they tried to seek a job) it creates a horrible precedent that isn’t undone by 30 or 40 years of modern feminist movements.
[/quote]
I’m sure the toy manufacturer chose those things to make a political statement.
It had nothing to do with what little girls themselves would choose, and would ask their parents to buy.
This thread reminds me of when you told everybody that when one hears a foreign language, it sounds like their own to them.
I keep waiting for you to admit that you’re just fooling around here, too.[/quote]
That was a funny thread. This is not.
The fact is that you could replace “woman” with “blacks” and this thread would have a very different tone even though you’re essentially saying the same thing.
Children like what they are expected to like. Take a look at the thread from a few weeks ago about the kid wearing a dress to school. All the ridicule that that boy received is a pretty big incentive for most kids to just go with the flow.
I’m not arguing that the toys are such because that’s what girls want to play with. I’m arguing that there is no biological reason whatsoever for a girl wanting to play with a “girl” toy. Most children play with any toy they can get their hands on until their parents begin to steer them in the direction of gender-specific toys. Back in that other thread there was a question about whether or not a girl-oriented cartoon would be appropriate for a boy to watch.
Now, do you think anyone in this thread would be okay with their boys watching it? Some might, others definitely wouldn’t, especially RajRaj. Now, when your child lives in an environment in which that sort of cross-gender behavior is frowned upon and their class/playmates have the same expectations placed on them, it creates the sense within the child (even if he doesn’t know how to explain it) that they should play with “boys” toys. The acceptance that comes with that reinforces this idea.
The fact is that kids like to play with toys that look like them once they have a concept of what they look like. I’m white; I didn’t play with the black GI Joes and I didn’t play with Barbies. I had a friend down the street who was black when I was a kid. His favorite GI Joe was the Refrigerator Perry action figure. My sister loved GI Joe as well, but she liked the women characters.
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response.
Lets look at this study for a second
The eyes have it: Men do see things differently to women
September 3, 2012 in Neuroscience
The way that the visual centers of men and women’s brains works is different, finds new research published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Biology of Sex Differences. Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli, but women are better at discriminating between colors.
In the brain there are high concentrations of male sex hormone (androgen) receptors throughout cerebral cortex, especially in the visual cortex which is responsible for processing images. Androgens are also responsible for controlling the development of neurons in the visual cortex during embryogenesis, meaning that males have 25% more of these neurons than females.
Researchers from Brooklyn and Hunter Colleges of the City University of New York compared the vision of men and women aged over 16 from both college and high school, including students and staff. All volunteers were required to have normal color vision and 20/20 sight (or 20/20 when corrected by glasses or contact lenses).
When the volunteers were required to describe colors shown to them across the visual spectrum it became obvious that the color vision of men was shifted, and that they required a slightly longer wavelength to experience the same hue as the women. The males also had a broader range in the center of the spectrum where they were less able to discriminate between colors.
An image of light and dark bars was used to measure contrast-sensitivity functions (CSF) of vision; the bars were either horizontal or vertical and volunteers had to choose which one they saw. In each image, when the light and dark bars were alternated the image appeared to flicker.
By varying how rapidly the bars alternated or how close together they were, the team found that at moderate rates of image change, observers lost sensitivity for close together bars, and gained sensitivity when the bars were farther apart. However when the image change was faster both sexes were less able to resolve the images over all bar widths. Overall the men were better able to resolve more rapidly changing images that were closer together than the women.
Prof Israel Abramov, who led this study commented, “As with other senses, such as hearing and the olfactory system, there are marked sex differences in vision between men and women. The elements of vision we measured are determined by inputs from specific sets of thalamic neurons into the primary visual cortex. We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females. The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.”
More information: Sex & vision I: Spatio-temporal resolution Israel Abramov, James Gordon, Olga Feldman and Alla Chavarga, Biology of Sex Differences (in press)
So vision is clearly effected by hormonal differences between men and women, yet for some reason hormones cannot account for behavioural differences betweeb men and women hmm…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response. [/quote]
Did you see how he went about refuting my study regarding female happiness by the way? He cited some buddhist teaching about materialism and an increase in possession leading to unhappiness… real scientific bro.
I swear to you I am not lying, my favorite GI Joe toy of all time was the Fridge with his football morning star.
Not because he was black, or anything else other than the fact that he was a special mail-order character that you couldn’t buy at the store, and having him carried a certain kid-chache that even Sgt. Slaughter couldn’t match.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The fact is that you could replace “woman” with “blacks” and this thread would have a very different tone even though you’re essentially saying the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh and with respect to the blank angle, there are NO significant biological differences between black men and non-black men.
There are however, major hormonal differences between men and women.
Kinda shit on this argument didn’t I?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The fact is that you could replace “woman” with “blacks” and this thread would have a very different tone even though you’re essentially saying the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh and with respect to the blank angle, there are NO significant biological differences between black men and non-black men.
There are however, major hormonal differences between men and women.
Kinda shit on this argument didn’t I?
[/quote]
I saw this and actually thought about just posting, “You just lost the argument,” and leaving it at that.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Lets look at this study for a second
The eyes have it: Men do see things differently to women
September 3, 2012 in Neuroscience
The way that the visual centers of men and women’s brains works is different, finds new research published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Biology of Sex Differences. Men have greater sensitivity to fine detail and rapidly moving stimuli, but women are better at discriminating between colors.
In the brain there are high concentrations of male sex hormone (androgen) receptors throughout cerebral cortex, especially in the visual cortex which is responsible for processing images. Androgens are also responsible for controlling the development of neurons in the visual cortex during embryogenesis, meaning that males have 25% more of these neurons than females.
Researchers from Brooklyn and Hunter Colleges of the City University of New York compared the vision of men and women aged over 16 from both college and high school, including students and staff. All volunteers were required to have normal color vision and 20/20 sight (or 20/20 when corrected by glasses or contact lenses).
When the volunteers were required to describe colors shown to them across the visual spectrum it became obvious that the color vision of men was shifted, and that they required a slightly longer wavelength to experience the same hue as the women. The males also had a broader range in the center of the spectrum where they were less able to discriminate between colors.
An image of light and dark bars was used to measure contrast-sensitivity functions (CSF) of vision; the bars were either horizontal or vertical and volunteers had to choose which one they saw. In each image, when the light and dark bars were alternated the image appeared to flicker.
By varying how rapidly the bars alternated or how close together they were, the team found that at moderate rates of image change, observers lost sensitivity for close together bars, and gained sensitivity when the bars were farther apart. However when the image change was faster both sexes were less able to resolve the images over all bar widths. Overall the men were better able to resolve more rapidly changing images that were closer together than the women.
Prof Israel Abramov, who led this study commented, “As with other senses, such as hearing and the olfactory system, there are marked sex differences in vision between men and women. The elements of vision we measured are determined by inputs from specific sets of thalamic neurons into the primary visual cortex. We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females. The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.”
More information: Sex & vision I: Spatio-temporal resolution Israel Abramov, James Gordon, Olga Feldman and Alla Chavarga, Biology of Sex Differences (in press)
So vision is clearly effected by hormonal differences between men and women, yet for some reason hormones cannot account for behavioural differences betweeb men and women hmm…[/quote]
It’s getting stupid now. He’s adopted an extreme position and is flailing around wildly slinging insults and attacks along with anything else to distract from the the fact that the position he’s adopted is wholly untenable.
Meanwhile, all of us on the other side have at least allowed for certain aspects of the counter-arguments to apply. Yet common sense is enough to see that where we’re coming from is a real place. A town that people can visit and snap photos of and take home tourist brochures.
His is a dog-eared brochure of an assisted living community, white-creased and ass molded into the greasy fold of a fat feminist’s chain wallet.
*edit: typo
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response. [/quote]
If this were a court of law you couldn’t even secure an indictment.
When poor examples of evidence are presented you best believe I’m going to shit all over it.
I’m heading to work in a short while and will not have time to participate further until later tonight. In the meantime, why don’t you tell me what you want evidence of? I’m not trying to turn the tables and make demands of you; this thread is simply spiraling out of control in many directions and I’m hoping to narrow the focus here a little. Tell me what you want evidence of I will work to provide it.
HOWEVER, in the meantime I encourage you to read a book called “Changing Lives” by Bonnie G. Smith. It is a comprehensive history of the evolution of gender roles in Europe and, to a lesser extent, America. It starts with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and continues through WWII. I’m pretty sure it’s out of print now, but there are cheap copies available on Amazon and there may even be a Kindle version available, although I doubt it.
I’ll leave you with this food for thought. Blacks in this country experience many disadvantages and are generally poorer earners than whites. They find themselves in less positions of leadership, our President not withstanding, they are less-educated for the most part and truth be told, they DO embody many of the negative stereotypes assigned to them. In this respect, their situation in this country is very similar to that of women. We can point to people like President Obama or Condoleezza Rice as outliers or whatever, just like you and others have done so with my examples (Meg Whitman, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc)
Now, I don’t think anyone here would argue that the situation for blacks in this country is simply because “that’s how they are”. The reasons are far and many and I would hope no one on here thinks that the situation for blacks is part of a biological, innate tendency toward poverty or fried chicken or malt liquor or crack or whatever other negative stereotype can be assigned to them. In a way, since MOST blacks are not in positions of leadership would you argue that MOST blacks are poorer leaders than whites?
The point I’m struggling to make is that if blacks can point to a long history of subjugation and enslavement as the root cause of their situation in this country, then why is it ridiculous to say that an almost identical position women have found themselves in is also a result of that same sort of subjugation and prejudice?
I fully agree that there are biological differences between men and women. I completely disagree that those biological differences make men inherently better leaders than women. I think the reason men have typically been in positions of leadership that women have not been in is because of opportunity, not biology.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that as women have been given more opportunity they have taken advantage and now we see more female leaders, politicians, CEOs and so forth than ever before. If there IS an inherently biological reason for the “superiority” of men in this respect, then what evolutionary process are we witnessing women undergo right now? What is happening to their biology that is leading more and more to the corporate world instead of the kitchen? The political world instead of the supermarket?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response. [/quote]
If this were a court of law you couldn’t even secure an indictment.
When poor examples of evidence are presented you best believe I’m going to shit all over it.
I’m heading to work in a short while and will not have time to participate further until later tonight. In the meantime, why don’t you tell me what you want evidence of? I’m not trying to turn the tables and make demands of you; this thread is simply spiraling out of control in many directions and I’m hoping to narrow the focus here a little. Tell me what you want evidence of I will work to provide it.
HOWEVER, in the meantime I encourage you to read a book called “Changing Lives” by Bonnie G. Smith. It is a comprehensive history of the evolution of gender roles in Europe and, to a lesser extent, America. It starts with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and continues through WWII. I’m pretty sure it’s out of print now, but there are cheap copies available on Amazon and there may even be a Kindle version available, although I doubt it.
I’ll leave you with this food for thought. Blacks in this country experience many disadvantages and are generally poorer earners than whites. They find themselves in less positions of leadership, our President not withstanding, they are less-educated for the most part and truth be told, they DO embody many of the negative stereotypes assigned to them. In this respect, their situation in this country is very similar to that of women. We can point to people like President Obama or Condoleezza Rice as outliers or whatever, just like you and others have done so with my examples (Meg Whitman, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc)
Now, I don’t think anyone here would argue that the situation for blacks in this country is simply because “that’s how they are”. The reasons are far and many and I would hope no one on here thinks that the situation for blacks is part of a biological, innate tendency toward poverty or fried chicken or malt liquor or crack or whatever other negative stereotype can be assigned to them. In a way, since MOST blacks are not in positions of leadership would you argue that MOST blacks are poorer leaders than whites?
The point I’m struggling to make is that if blacks can point to a long history of subjugation and enslavement as the root cause of their situation in this country, then why is it ridiculous to say that an almost identical position women have found themselves in is also a result of that same sort of subjugation and prejudice?
[/quote]
Do me a favor, ask Professor X if he agrees with the above.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response. [/quote]
If this were a court of law you couldn’t even secure an indictment.
When poor examples of evidence are presented you best believe I’m going to shit all over it.
I’m heading to work in a short while and will not have time to participate further until later tonight. In the meantime, why don’t you tell me what you want evidence of? I’m not trying to turn the tables and make demands of you; this thread is simply spiraling out of control in many directions and I’m hoping to narrow the focus here a little. Tell me what you want evidence of I will work to provide it.
HOWEVER, in the meantime I encourage you to read a book called “Changing Lives” by Bonnie G. Smith. It is a comprehensive history of the evolution of gender roles in Europe and, to a lesser extent, America. It starts with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and continues through WWII. I’m pretty sure it’s out of print now, but there are cheap copies available on Amazon and there may even be a Kindle version available, although I doubt it.
I’ll leave you with this food for thought. Blacks in this country experience many disadvantages and are generally poorer earners than whites. They find themselves in less positions of leadership, our President not withstanding, they are less-educated for the most part and truth be told, they DO embody many of the negative stereotypes assigned to them. In this respect, their situation in this country is very similar to that of women. We can point to people like President Obama or Condoleezza Rice as outliers or whatever, just like you and others have done so with my examples (Meg Whitman, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc)
Now, I don’t think anyone here would argue that the situation for blacks in this country is simply because “that’s how they are”. The reasons are far and many and I would hope no one on here thinks that the situation for blacks is part of a biological, innate tendency toward poverty or fried chicken or malt liquor or crack or whatever other negative stereotype can be assigned to them. In a way, since MOST blacks are not in positions of leadership would you argue that MOST blacks are poorer leaders than whites?
The point I’m struggling to make is that if blacks can point to a long history of subjugation and enslavement as the root cause of their situation in this country, then why is it ridiculous to say that an almost identical position women have found themselves in is also a result of that same sort of subjugation and prejudice?
[/quote]
Do me a favor, ask Professor X if he agrees with the above. [/quote]
Oh, I forgot. Professor X speaks for the entire black population in this country.
End women’s suffrage!
http://www.kontraband.com/videos/12474/Help-End-Womens-Suffrage/
On a serious note, this clip points out that fewer PEOPLE (not specific to women) should vote. You have to pass a test to drive a car, but not to vote?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
When poor examples of evidence are presented you best believe I’m going to shit all over it.
[/quote]
Other than shoot down “examples”… even if they were poor… you haven’t really presented any counter argument, no matter how weak, showing that things are different.
I mean, we can argue all day long about why boys prefer playing with boys toys and girls prefer girls toys.
But despite all our attempts to “explain” the behavior, it still happens. Shooting down the explanations isn’t going to change these kids’ behavior.
Because right now, all I’m seeing is wishful thinking, not an alternate explanation that even holds true with most people’s anecdotal experience.
[Replace kids with adults, boys with men, girls with women, throw in the word leadership… no matter how you spin it, the weak explanations map pretty closely with reality, even if it doesn’t really make sense]
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DB, do you have any evidence for a any of your claims other than your very very obstinate opinion? Oh, and one isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea?
You’ve shat all over every study you were presented with, declared victory multiple times, and made claims upon the dull yet somehow insidious workings of your interlocutors’ minds. In the end, though, aside from your New Guinean androgynes, you’ve not presented a single shred of evidence that what you so vehemently claim as gospel should be taken seriously at all.
You are clearly a really smart guy, but if this were a court of law, you’d have been overruled out of town pages ago by any halfway sober judge.
Looking forward to your go-to “I know you are but what am I” response. [/quote]
If this were a court of law you couldn’t even secure an indictment.
When poor examples of evidence are presented you best believe I’m going to shit all over it.
I’m heading to work in a short while and will not have time to participate further until later tonight. In the meantime, why don’t you tell me what you want evidence of? I’m not trying to turn the tables and make demands of you; this thread is simply spiraling out of control in many directions and I’m hoping to narrow the focus here a little. Tell me what you want evidence of I will work to provide it.
HOWEVER, in the meantime I encourage you to read a book called “Changing Lives” by Bonnie G. Smith. It is a comprehensive history of the evolution of gender roles in Europe and, to a lesser extent, America. It starts with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and continues through WWII. I’m pretty sure it’s out of print now, but there are cheap copies available on Amazon and there may even be a Kindle version available, although I doubt it.
I’ll leave you with this food for thought. Blacks in this country experience many disadvantages and are generally poorer earners than whites. They find themselves in less positions of leadership, our President not withstanding, they are less-educated for the most part and truth be told, they DO embody many of the negative stereotypes assigned to them. In this respect, their situation in this country is very similar to that of women. We can point to people like President Obama or Condoleezza Rice as outliers or whatever, just like you and others have done so with my examples (Meg Whitman, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc)
Now, I don’t think anyone here would argue that the situation for blacks in this country is simply because “that’s how they are”. The reasons are far and many and I would hope no one on here thinks that the situation for blacks is part of a biological, innate tendency toward poverty or fried chicken or malt liquor or crack or whatever other negative stereotype can be assigned to them. In a way, since MOST blacks are not in positions of leadership would you argue that MOST blacks are poorer leaders than whites?
The point I’m struggling to make is that if blacks can point to a long history of subjugation and enslavement as the root cause of their situation in this country, then why is it ridiculous to say that an almost identical position women have found themselves in is also a result of that same sort of subjugation and prejudice?
[/quote]
Do me a favor, ask Professor X if he agrees with the above. [/quote]
Oh, I forgot. Professor X speaks for the entire black population in this country.[/quote]
But you expect me to take it that you do, honky?
*edited