SJW Courses and Potential Damage?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Evolution then?  Wow, I really am not sure I need to go much farther into showing how absolutely warped this stereotype as become for you.

[Renegade Vile]

Evolution then?  Wow, I really am not sure I need to go much farther into showing how absolutely warped this stereotype as become for you.

Go look up some sources on the differences between the male and female brain and current theories on why those differences are there. Also, what makes you think I act on those stereotypes? What makes you think I look at a woman and just assume: she must be good with babies? I'm explaining where the stereotype comes from and that it's not entirely mired in irrationality and bigotry.
Next you're going to tell me I think all women belong in the kitchen or something.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

For all the beauty and advancement science has brought to civilization, please understand that science is a tool at the end of the day.  The bias and desires of those conducting the studies, writing the papers and performing the reviews still stands.  Since the creation of science there has been a desire to assert one’s beliefs and impress stereotypes with the backing of science.  At one time science claimed superiority of the white race over other groups.  Women were subscribed as being incapable of logical thought and unable to physically compete with men.  Observations of intelligent men manipulated to satisfy their own bias and actions.  So to say that there are different structures in the brain is an objective measurement which is true.  Then to turn around and hazard a guess, which is what these individuals would be doing, is to support their beliefs with something possibly unrelated.

Your wife does not have an innate understanding of children any more than you do.   An increase in empathy does not give her any super abilities to change the child any faster, to understanding the cries of the child or any other skill set needed to care for a child.  Indeed her only advantage is that society designated her as caregiver long ago while she was a child and so gave her tools for the task.  A stereotype supporting itself through the generations until people no longer question the origin.  Men have just as much ability to care for children as men from birth and onward.  That stereotype has done much to separate men from their children along with place a undeserved burden on the shoulders of women.

Evolution plays no part in the process of societal integration and stereotype propagation.  Were women in fact breed to be the true caretakers of children there would be greater ability to hold, defend and feed their children over their male counterparts.  Women have no such ability beyond what is taught to them by others.  Those same skills can just as easily be given to men.

As for my belief in your stereotypes, I am fairly certain you do believe this one as evidenced by what you have said about your role in raising your child. 

[Renegade Vile]

For all the beauty and advancement science has brought to civilization, please understand that science is a tool at the end of the day.  The bias and desires of those conducting the studies, writing the papers and performing the reviews still stands.  Since the creation of science there has been a desire to assert one’s beliefs and impress stereotypes with the backing of science.

So what you're saying is we should no longer believe any source because it will always be biased? No matter how much peer review from various sources it gets?

At one time science claimed superiority of the white race over other groups.

Yes, and this science was significantly contested at that same time as well. Not every scientist just nodded their heads and went: makes sense.

Women were subscribed as being incapable of logical thought and unable to physically compete with men.

Which was based on baseless assumptions.

Observations of intelligent men manipulated to satisfy their own bias and actions.  So to say that there are different structures in the brain is an objective measurement which is true.  Then to turn around and hazard a guess, which is what these individuals would be doing, is to support their beliefs with something possibly unrelated.

The sources I was referring to are not about women's innate abilities with children, those are purely on differences between the brains, which you say is a true, objective measurement. What flows are not always accurate assumptions on what effect these differences have, but you can also not just discredit them by claiming bias, especially given the increasing number of eyes that study every single scientific claim that gets made compared to ye olden days where it was more wild west than today.

Your wife does not have an innate understanding of children any more than you do.   An increase in empathy does not give her any super abilities to change the child any faster, to understanding the cries of the child or any other skill set needed to care for a child.

The empathy was an example of one aspect and one aspect alone. I do however believe she, in particular, had a much easier time learning these things.

Indeed her only advantage is that society designated her as caregiver long ago while she was a child and so gave her tools for the task.

So you believe it is society? Perhaps, though I still think that this was shaped by these roles an extremely long time ago, long enough to have an impact on how our bodies evolved over time, brains included. Just looking at animals you can see the same tendencies, though primitive.

A stereotype supporting itself through the generations until people no longer question the origin.  Men have just as much ability to care for children as men from birth and onward.  That stereotype has done much to separate men from their children along with place a undeserved burden on the shoulders of women.

And I reiterate, while I think your average woman will have a somewhat easier time learning the ropes, some of which will just flow naturally and from a link with their children through pregnancy, I do not think this should be a constant and a reason to force anyone into a role they do not want or are comfortable with, just like I think it's a father's responsibility to be as involved with their children as possible (a responsibility that a lot of fathers do take up). But again, I still think that difference is there, influencing matters subtly, and I don't think it's just some social construct crafted in times anyone is going to find any records of.

Evolution plays no part in the process of societal integration and stereotype propagation.  Were women in fact breed to be the true caretakers of children there would be greater ability to hold, defend and feed their children over their male counterparts.  Women have no such ability beyond what is taught to them by others.  Those same skills can just as easily be given to men.

I never said they just have to wake up one day and 'boom!' she knows how to hold a child. From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive. What mothers and fathers bring to the table for a child's development is different because of these differences between genders that you can't just ignore. And since I've said it about five times by now, I'll just add it again: this does not apply to all women and not all men. Can those skills be taught to men? Of course. But with your average male, just the interest and desire to learn will be less and less common.

As for my belief in your stereotypes, I am fairly certain you do believe this one as evidenced by what you have said about your role in raising your child.

Care to elaborate?
I also don't appreciate being called a liar, especially not when I've stated about a thousand blasted times that I do not think these stereotypes should be acted upon, even if some of them have a basis in rational reasoning. It's like you skip over these extremely vital disclaimers every time they're brought up.

[Lilias]

Go look up some sources on the differences between the male and female brain and current theories on why those differences are there.

Excellent - and eminently readable - analysis right here. Enjoyment of reading necessary, I'm afraid (sorry, RV! :-))

[Renegade Vile]

Excellent - and eminently readable - analysis right here. Enjoyment of reading necessary, I'm afraid (sorry, RV! :-))

This book isn't going to claim there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women is it?

[Lilias]

This book isn't going to claim there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women is it?

No. It definitely claims that the differences don't mean what we have long been told they mean, though.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

People still hold onto the physical inability of women to compete with men.  Many make use of scientific analysis that is peer reviewed and tested.  Theories range from bone density, hormone levels, physical build, and protein uptake and muscle development.  Such science has kept women out of certain jobs, out of military promotions and barred entry to sporting leagues.  People still hold a myth about the thought process of women and there are indeed scientific articles published about women having “emotional” thought processes versus the logical process of men.  Empathy is also a big one people like to use, supposing that sounds better.

All scientific papers and theories should be taken with a grain of salt.  That is one of the cornerstones of science is that nothing is safe.  This is particularly true when guessing at the nature of a difference.  While a difference that shows up on a scan might indeed exist objectively, determining the purpose is not so objective.  This is especially true when we have little understanding of empathy, intellect and so forth. 

I do not think evolution works the way you think it does or in a time frame you are presenting. 

As for liar and reading your posts, I certainly am.  Hence why I am stating you are holding this stereotype.  "From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive." - Renegade Vile.

[Renegade Vile]

No. It definitely claims that the differences don't mean what we have long been told they mean, though.

Why a book and not a paper, though?

People still hold onto the physical inability of women to compete with men.  Many make use of scientific analysis that is peer reviewed and tested.  Theories range from bone density, hormone levels, physical build, and protein uptake and muscle development.  Such science has kept women out of certain jobs, out of military promotions and barred entry to sporting leagues.  People still hold a myth about the thought process of women and there are indeed scientific articles published about women having “emotional” thought processes versus the logical process of men.  Empathy is also a big one people like to use, supposing that sounds better.

So you're saying women build muscle as quickly and easily as men? Some women certainly do, in fact, I've seen some women build muscle faster (and I mean strong muscles, not bulk, bulk means nothing in terms of strength; you can be built like a gorilla but have no real explosive power) than most men. But I've yet to see this be a norm. And don't tell me that's society's fault because the number of fitness instructors I've heard tell women to exercise using weights for their health - weights that push their limits - are innumerable. Women can make just as good a soldier as any man. Women should be allowed to enter any sporting league. Women should be allowed to do any job. However, IF they can get through the entrance requirements. If a woman can get through a Navy Seal training (i think those are still barred from women in the US, right?), and I am 100% certain there are plenty of female soldiers who can, she should be allowed to do so. But it is a pipe dream to proclaim it's a myth that all women build physical strength as quickly as men do. Just go to any mixed-gender gym and follow a weightlifting course with a male friend yourself and see. You won't fail, but unless you belong to the exceptions, it's going to take longer.
As for the emotional thought processes, that's actually one I do not ascribe to. I've met as many women who are calm and rational as I've met women who get emotional over the smallest thing, just as I've met men on both spectra. Though maybe that's personal perception, emotional investment and experience is something I've not really looked into much so my opinion could change on that.

All scientific papers and theories should be taken with a grain of salt.  That is one of the cornerstones of science is that nothing is safe.  This is particularly true when guessing at the nature of a difference.  While a difference that shows up on a scan might indeed exist objectively, determining the purpose is not so objective.  This is especially true when we have little understanding of empathy, intellect and so forth. 

Of course they should be taken with a grain of salt, and science is an ongoing process. We're understanding more and more about how the brain works every passing day. My opinion, just like the scientific results, can - and probably will - change with every discussion. But right now, from what I've read over the years, from all manner of scientists, this is what seems most likely to me. That doesn't mean I just read something and instantly go: yup, that's true, I don't have to look into the opposing view to this because I like this one the most.

I do not think evolution works the way you think it does or in a time frame you are presenting. 

I am talking from even before Homo Sapiens, before we became human as we know it.

As for liar and reading your posts, I certainly am.  Hence why I am stating you are holding this stereotype.  "From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive." - Renegade Vile.

Charming. Also in need of reading again.

EDIT: The stereotype being that all women know babies better and should be handling babies not men? Yes, from that you can definitely divulge that I believe that.
That was sarcasm.

[Lilias]

Why a book and not a paper, though?

Because it is an excellent piece of work, and easy to find in a public library (at least in English-speaking countries).

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The idea of beauty and the ideal body is of great interest to women and men.  Women are not shown to be beautiful by having layers of powerful muscles.  Social stigma and pressure push most women toward leaner exercises such as cardiovascular exercises and toward low weight, high repetition exercises.  Women rarely participate in strength training as men do at the gym.  A lack of participation brought about by societal expectations propagates the stereotype, reinforcing the assumption.

Societal roles as you know them today are believed to originate at the time when men and women started to farm and raise animals.  Essentially a division of labor was developed where women maintained a home and men would do the farming activity.  Evolution does not move to support a societal role unless that society is killing or sterilizing the reproductive abilities of anyone not filling that niche. 

As I pointed out there is a great deal of rationalizing that goes into supporting a stereotype.  People are always saying they have read the latest peer reviewed article in regard to their beliefs or have empirical evidence.  Am I to simply fold my beliefs every time someone says they read Scientific American or some other magazine?

Your quote pretty much sums up your stereotype.

[Renegade Vile]

Because it is an excellent piece of work, and easy to find in a public library (at least in English-speaking countries).

If it comes with your recommendation (and I've looked up some reviews and it's been well-reviewed even by opponents of the views as they claim it makes some valid points) I'll try and look for it. Ghent and Leuven, for example, have extensive libraries with English books in their university. I've actually gone in them still years after finishing uni by flashing my old student card and making sure I shave *snorts*.

The idea of beauty and the ideal body is of great interest to women and men.  Women are not shown to be beautiful by having layers of powerful muscles.

This I will immediately contest as you will find a lot of men (a lot of women too for that matter) like women with a powerful body. Just look at female wrestlers that are popular (not those shoves in our faces, those that are actually popular). You're going to be finding a lot less of that hourglass figure, and a lot more actual strength and athleticism. Also look at female superheroes in comic books. You do not get much more ripped than the likes of Wonder Woman, Rogue, Storm, etc.

Social stigma and pressure push most women toward leaner exercises such as cardiovascular exercises and toward low weight, high repetition exercises.  Women rarely participate in strength training as men do at the gym.  A lack of participation brought about by societal expectations propagates the stereotype, reinforcing the assumption.

Societal expectations? From whom? If I look at who perpetuate these things, more often than not, it's other women. With diet plan A or exercise plan B that just incorporates vegetables or jogging. Every time I see private trainers, male or female, coaching women in gyms (and because I've been moving around a lot, I've seen a lot of gyms) they always include or try to include strength training. Because guess what makes your heartrate skyrocket and help you lose weight (and keep lost weight off)? Muscle. Advertisement certainly pushing the model-thin type of woman bu-... We're going off track, my point was that it's harder for women to build muscle. It just is. Get over it and go lift weights to tell the people that say women -cannot- be strong that they're wrong, because that is an actual false and baseless claim. Once they're shown a female boxer knocking someone out with the toughest right hook this side of the Western World, they quickly change their tune anyway. Even quicker if they were to be on the receiving end.

Societal roles as you know them today are believed to originate at the time when men and women started to farm and raise animals.  Essentially a division of labor was developed where women maintained a home and men would do the farming activity.  Evolution does not move to support a societal role unless that society is killing or sterilizing the reproductive abilities of anyone not filling that niche.

So what did people do before then? We just all did the same things? You can't look at the male and female bodies and tell me that there wasn't a division of roles even before we knew how to till a field or domesticate an animal. Go far back to our ancestors and those same differences still exist. I agree that society reinforced these roles the more complex it became, but there will have been naturally progressed differences going back to before we could even be considered human.

As I pointed out there is a great deal of rationalizing that goes into supporting a stereotype.  People are always saying they have read the latest peer reviewed article in regard to their beliefs or have empirical evidence.  Am I to simply fold my beliefs every time someone says they read Scientific American or some other magazine?

Of course not. You're supposed to read many different viewpoints and then come to your own conclusion, not dismiss everything as bias because you don't like it. I never once said you should just take everything at face value. But at some point, when building your own opinion on something, you're going to have to place your trust in -something-. Whether that be your own experiences, statistics, papers, books, debates, whatever. Unless you have access to the perfect machine that can separate raw, unadulterated fact from speculation, you have no other choice.

Your quote pretty much sums up your stereotype.

Hmkay.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Actually cardiovascular exercises such as running make your heartrate increase the fastest.  Muscle training and development increases fat loss due to the caloric intake of muscles being higher.  Basically the human body requires more to maintain the increased muscle mass, so less goes into storage and more goes into use.  Hence why body builders eat such a tremendous amount of food.  Just felt I should go ahead and address that statement.

Athletic is not the same as muscular.  Being “ripped” is not the same as having heavy muscle mass or even building muscle.  Honestly comic books are a poor medium to show female equality in regard to body image.  The women there are hour glass shaped, with lean to slender builds. 

Body image is pushed from both men and women.  Women are included in society as well.

Once more what is the practical difference with male and female bodies that creates a division of labor?  Before the domestication of animals, humans were hunters and gatherers.

[Renegade Vile]

Actually cardiovascular exercises such as running make your heartrate increase the fastest.  Muscle training and development increases fat loss due to the caloric intake of muscles being higher.  Basically the human body requires more to maintain the increased muscle mass, so less goes into storage and more goes into use.  Hence why body builders eat such a tremendous amount of food.  Just felt I should go ahead and address that statement.

Running makes the heart go fastest, but it takes much longer for it to start burning calories. There's a difference between the rush the body gets when lifting weights, and how your heart responds, and jogging or cycling. As for the caloric intake, that was what I was referring to as to why it helps keep the weight off.

Athletic is not the same as muscular.  Being “ripped” is not the same as having heavy muscle mass or even building muscle.  Honestly comic books are a poor medium to show female equality in regard to body image.  The women there are hour glass shaped, with lean to slender builds. 

I am well aware of the difference, but they often go hand-in-hand, especially in the examples I gave. And comic books were an excellent example in how muscle on a woman is not viewed with aversion. I know all too well that depictions of women overall are unrealistic, often over-sexualized and also just plain wrong, but if they were to yield to the ideal you seem to be proposing, shouldn't they all have no muscles to show?

Body image is pushed from both men and women.  Women are included in society as well.

What kind of weird statement is that last one? Did I say otherwise? I just made that claim because it seemed to me like you were creeping towards sexism with that train of thought. My mistake and apologies if that was not the case.

Once more what is the practical difference with male and female bodies that creates a division of labor?  Before the domestication of animals, humans were hunters and gatherers.

Turn back time to a time when life was countless times tougher than it is today. Need not even go so far as hunter/gatherers, but that is the easiest. If you had one gender that could get ready for tasks of strength quicker than the other, do you think they had the luxury to just take their time and make sure everyone was on that level playing field before assigning roles?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have yet to see evidence that women would be discounted for their strength and physical ability in this division of labor.  So I am not sure again what physical difference you are making reference to in this ancient drawing of straws for whom does what in society.

As for comics, once more athletic does not mean muscular.  Compare a runner’s body to a power lifter if you would.

[Renegade Vile]

I have yet to see evidence that women would be discounted for their strength and physical ability in this division of labor.  So I am not sure again what physical difference you are making reference to in this ancient drawing of straws for whom does what in society.

Evidence I do not have on hand, no. I would have to walk into my handy time machine, but it's plugged in and charging at this moment. However, I can bring up a lot more reasons for why a division of roles would have come about naturally from the way our bodies work (not the least of which pregnancy or the shorter life span of males, for example). But I get the feeling you'll just call me biased, so perhaps this is where the conversation dies down and we leave it at that?

As for comics, once more athletic does not mean muscular.  Compare a runner’s body to a power lifter if you would.

I've been saying -both-, combined (they can combine, actually...) and otherwise, are not as reviled as you seem to think. Underrepresented, definitely.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A lack of evidence means you are making conjecture to support your view point.  This means that I could just as easily do the same and the discussion is simply moot.

[Renegade Vile]

A lack of evidence means you are making conjecture to support your view point.  This means that I could just as easily do the same and the discussion is simply moot.

Never said I had hard evidence about cavemen times, only what I've read in a variety of sources written by experts on the subject matter *shrugs*. But that does not mean I'm making conjecture to support my view point. What I say isn't baseless, there's just no certainty. My view point has come from research in these documents and is built onto that, just like I am certain your view point comes from research you have done into these things. There is a middle ground between completely baseless claims and hard evidence. Unless we're discussing what oxygen is, or at what temperature water boils under normal circumstances, theories, research and guesses are all we have, and these are the ones I've always found to be the most plausible. Doesn't mean I held that view -before- I encountered them. If that were the case for everyone, we wouldn't be able to trust anything anyone says ever, which isn't exactly going to get us anywhere either.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You are lacking evidence to support your claims.  This may be window dressed how you like but simply put there is no evidence that you are presenting to support your claims for this division of labor and it's  basis in physiology.  I understand the need to save face, but that is how this argument is drawing to a close. 

[Renegade Vile]

You are lacking evidence to support your claims.  This may be window dressed how you like but simply put there is no evidence that you are presenting to support your claims for this division of labor and it's  basis in physiology.  I understand the need to save face, but that is how this argument is drawing to a close.

Not about saving face *shrugs*. But alright.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Too long; watched 3/4 of it.

Skipping the male vs female derailment.
 
At this point, the argument seems to be that colleges are failing to properly educate some of their students with regard to social justice? Is it the college's fault though, or is it the fault of the student?

Some of the examples given appear to be misdirected anger with this whole SJ thing being nothing more than a platform to shout from. When you look at larger examples of this like the Occupy Wall Street movement, you see anger about inequality directed at some abstract group called "the one percent"  and claims that the one percent should not have whatever wealth they possess - presumably because if you have more stuff than me, then we are no longer equal, and that is not fair. Somehow the solution is always to dispossess someone else of their resources rather than to make an equivalent personal sacrifice.

Inequality is not equivalent to injustice.  It is fair and reasonable that some people have more than others. That's just what happens when money moves from person to person. Those who profit end up with more regardless of the color of their skin or the shape of their fiddly bits.

[Renegade Vile]

Somehow the solution is always to dispossess someone else of their resources rather than to make an equivalent personal sacrifice.

There is a reason why a lot of SJWs are often called whiny, severely entitled people who want to blame others for their own bad mistakes or, even stranger, the privileges they enjoy. Like they feel an odd sense of guilt over having more than others, even when this wasn't acquired in any nefarious manner.

Regardless, I agree with what you said, though the argument is more that the idea of social justice (at universities) has become warped by an ideology. Social justice should be dealing in facts or supported theories like every other course, whereas many of these dabble in propaganda and misinformation, on purpose. Whether that's something to be concerned about or not, I'm on the fence about. I get the feeling that a lot of these screaming SJWs reach a certain age where they either decide to grow up, or continue to be mired in that sub-culture. In the latter's case, I believe they aim to become university professors of Social Justice *snorts*.

[TheGlyphstone]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

[Renegade Vile]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

Easy, the latter doesn't scream and shout from the top of their lungs, hugs and cries together when they hit opposition, tolerates discussion and debate, does not make blanket statements about people, aren't blatantly racists/sexist/whatever themselves, etc. SJWs are essentially everything they fight, but just turned against whatever ethnicity or sexuality is perceived as being 'the oppressor' in a given location. There are exceptions to this, where SJWs do not behave like this, but actually still are of that kind, but these are the general patterns of behavior. Especially the intolerance for any kind of discussion or debate which results in them shutting it down with as many buzzwords as they can conceive of, is a big trademark. Just think of anything you'd imagine a right-wing, religious fundamentalist fanatic saying or doing, but give it a left-leaning, progressive spin, and you've got SJWs. People genuinely fighting for social justice, at least the ones I've read about in articles or watched online, are generally calm, rational people who take challenges on headfirst, be they online or in real life.
Note that I did describe the people who fly the SJW flag high. You've got admittedly harder to distinguish people who follow the same ideology, but aren't really into the whole activism part of it.

[Scribbles]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

Personally, I hate the term SJW, it's become synonymous with "oppressive" in my mind. If someone stands up for the rights of others, without resorting to hypocrisy or drowning out dissenting voices, then I feel they're more a liberal than an SJW. Just my own personal opinion, though.