If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Hormonal/chemical difference (testosterone/oxycotin) is well-established, but here are a few i've found with mentions.
http://soc.enotes.com/male-female-article
http://www.psychadvisor.com/inthenews/viewart.cfm?ItemID=4
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/article19.html
It is a fucking definition of Feminism that stands by what my whole point that youy said was total crap. It is the core belief, which i support, it is how it is implimented that defines whether it is of value. It is such a simple point i was making.
That's an argument against capitalism which is surely separate from gender, as subject 13 said plenty of traditionally male careers such as building, Army etc are low paid. Also, from a feminist perspective, surely the key problem here lies with the fact that these careers are female-dominated, rather than low paid? i.e. society trains women specifically for these position when this shouldn't be so? Marxist-feminism obviously sort of covers this, but the implication you're making is that these jobs are female-orientated by nature...which is surely an anethema to feminist ideology?
Of course i'd agree with this.
Again this a problem relating to capitalism (having babies reduces productivity and profitability for employers) but it goes deeper than that. What's your suggestion to solve this? Or is it reasonable to accept that women's careers are hampered naturally because of children?
Jobs should be given to people based upon the performance they give at interview or can potentially give while in the job. Male or female.
How can that be a "core belief" when it makes no attempt to unpack what is meant by "equal politically, economically and socially". Its pretty meaningless without that really.
I know this thread is about feminism, but I just can't hide that I'm absolutely appalled by this comment. I can't even begin to say in how many ways... :banghead:
klintock is our resident "care in the community" case. Most people have him on ignore.
Thank you.
Why?
Originally Posted by morrocan roll
over thousands of years it has been that way ...of necessity.
Absolute rubbish. Check yer history.
0
enlighten me.
as for kermits remark some time back ...'why are the poor always poor'? ...
mostly because of inability.
not every brain/mind ...can deal with the world it is expected to survive and thrive in.
Aye, but environment is the root cause. Either that, or the poor are genetically inferior.
The check yer history comment refers to foreigners observing tribal societies and (falsely) thinking that the gender roles were reversed because there was such a cultural gulf with the West - they didn't really understand the people in detail, they merely drew conclusions without proper basis.
all the fucking science in the world ...all the social engineering in history ...will never has never gotten some people to understand even the basics of harmony ...balance ...love ...graft.
some people are destined ...to never achieve ...but often be happy enough with their lot.
a lot of these people ...work at the very bottom of the pile ...and can be seen as our foundations.
those who break free ...no longer want to be the foundations ...
the poor will allways be with us.
In terms of achievement, success etc environment plays a huge role.
An underclass of people doing the most menial of jobs...for the shittiest of wages and working conditions...do so because of environment. Bring the same people up under different conditions by wealthy families focussed on academic achievement and success in work backed up with plenty of money and their lives would be completely different. They'd be the lawyers, the doctors, the businessmen...it's pure social determinism.
If that were true, all poor people would stay poor, their kids would be poor, and all rich people would be rich, and stay rich. Doesn't happen.
The key element is delaying your gratification. Anyone can save up and use compound interest etc to get wealthy. It takes a while but it's not even complicated to do so. The idiot who buys fags and beer to get him through next week rather than save and invest hasn't learned to delay pleasure. That's about it.
Wealthy people do tend to teach their kids this, poor people don't know it so can't. Kids don't follow their parents (wow, amazing insight) as anyone who has seen the freefall of rich folks in the papers can attest.
the reality is ...the poor will always be with us and so will the stupid ...
Note that this doesn't mean that all rich people are intelligent and talented, since it requires you to have less of these qualities to stay at the top, than to get there in the first place, and they have better tools to do so (i.e. a better education).
I don't like the victim attitude. I find it sad when people say that it is purely their initial social status that will determine how they end up. These are usually the same people who when asked, can't think of anything productive that they have done to try to gain wealth in their lives.
You're missing the point. If environment doesn't play a significant part in determining character then you're suggesting biological determinism - end of.
Coming from the same socio-economic group doesn't equate to the same upbringing. No two people have the same upbringing.
Your first paragraph contradicts the second.
The parents of the child attempted to socialise the child into a female role, even giving it a sex change at a few months old. They failed.
No, I am saying that those who do the right actions get rich. Those who do the wrong actions become poor. Stupid people can become rich, if they do the right actions, intelligent people can become poor if they do the wrong ones.
The killer bit is that you have to know what actions to do. People from wealthy families are more likely to do those actions, and therefore their kids have a model to follow that poor ones do not but it's just another skill, like riding a bike or swimming or being happy.
I am suggesting it's 100% down to action on the part of the individual is what determines wealth or poverty of that individual. Miles easier if you start off rich, of course, no disputing it.
I never even suggested they were. In fact, quite the opposite.
It does, because the first paragraph clearly highlights part of the reason for the disproportionality which i've been talking about whilst the second ignores the concept of environment as a significant factor.
When you talking about stuff like this you have to look at each socio-economic group collectively, not taking the examples of individuals who have made a success of themselves from a poor background. It's the disproportionality which is key, and the reasons for that imbalance which are either environmental, biological or a combination of both.
What klintock is saying is largely true in a sense, but it's not covering the full picture.
How it's done -
Bank has £100
Bank pretends that it has £10 it doesn't using the credit asset ratio and "lends" £10 at 10% interest
Bank therefore wants £11 back.
We now have £110 in circulation, but the bank wants £11 of it.
Now there is £99 in circulation, so in order to pay the bank back someone must lose out who already holds some cash, or the loan doesn't get repaid and our "borrower" loses some poperty to settle his "debt".
Buisnesses must now try to make a profit in order to find that extra £1. Inflation is born.
Buisinesses compete, one loses and fails (even though the real world is choc full of resouces and there is no reason why it should) and the bank forecloses, gaining ownership of the property.
Bank rapidly uses this method to own everything it can grab.
Rinse, repeat.
With this as well. I wouldn't say "pure" as there are possibilities for individuals to challenge the conditions they were born in, but for the great majority, yes.
You appear to think that the family and social structures that are considered "natural" or "the norm" have always been with us. They haven't. Chek yer history.
Errr...no it doesn't.
what a load of tory crap
How does that settle the nature/nurture debate?