Female Discrimination

[Caid Ivik]

Why? I like today's fashion, but when I look philosophically WHY I do like it, I swear it isn't that piece of cloth...

[Alia Atreides]

This is called "morale". We agree with bared decolts and short skirts, muslims just don't do so. At least they have fewer rape causes in year. However, according to Koran, muslim women have great rights, especially after marriage. In Europe, home is usually considered as domain of man, who defends it etc., but muslims have for it wife. Fact they don't have sexual freedom as Europe nowadays has doesn't mean they are discriminated. In fact it is this abusement of freedom, which causes spread of AIDS and syphilis here on the west.

Caid,

Although your theroy on how AIDS was widespeard due to the abuse of sexual freedom is impressive it is not entirely correct. The speard of AIDS had several factors:

One the sexual revoltion of the 80's in which the homosexual community was at last allowed to come out of the closet, at least here in America, "bathhouses" (meeting places for sex) were opened in San Fransicio where they could openly congregate.

Two, AIDS is a blood-borne disease and again the homosexual community contributed a large population of blood donors in America.

Three even once it was proven that AIDS or GRID as it then called was being spread through the blood, the American Red Cross took several years (not until 1989 did they start screening blood for the AIDS virus) to act upon this information for the simple fact that it did not want to seem discriminatory towards gays nor for this look like a disease you got because you were gay.

Four America and France were both competing to be the first to accurately diagnose and name AIDS first to place their names in medical history as being the first to identify a new deadly disease. Becuase of this they did not share information with one another which could of curtailed the speard of AIDS quicker. To hell that people were dying after all they were only Gay People.

More simply put Politcal Agendas and Competitition were very big factors in the widespeard of AIDS.

This is called "morale". We agree with bared decolts and short skirts, muslims just don't do so. At least they have fewer rape causes in year.

This one I am not sure if you are joking or I misunderstood you. But short skirts have nothing to do with a woman being raped. Rape is never about the sex... it is about control.

[lowzeewee]

Another correct arguement...lol :P

[Caid Ivik]

Sexual diseases are spread primarily by sex. That's from what they are called for, Alia. And some gay baths have nothing to do with. Hygiene in medical centres is on so big level, that we can't say majority of cases is by infusions of contaminated blood. Sex is too popular in today's society, it is detabuized and it starting to be some new form of conversation. This calls for epidemy.

About the clothing we can take it as muslims control themselves less...

[Alia Atreides]

Sexual diseases are spread primarily by sex. That's from what they are called for, Alia. And some gay baths have nothing to do with. Hygiene in medical centres is on so big level, that we can't say majority of cases is by infusions of contaminated blood. Sex is too popular in today's society, it is detabuized and it starting to be some new form of conversation. This calls for epidemy.

I was refering to the primary causes for the orgin of AIDS yes of course they are spread by sex primarly. Todays society does focus too much on sex I agree.

[lowzeewee]

It depends on the people as well...like Africans have higher rates of AIDS infection so even if both follow the same lifestyle,the Africans will have more victims... ???

[Caid Ivik]

In most of AIDS-spreaded Africa are women considered as property, not saying that polygamy is unlimited here.

[lowzeewee]

Arab and South-East Asian Muslims...they practice sexual activities so often,yet they have less AIDS cases... :D

[Caid Ivik]

Well, it is not about how many times or how often you do so, but when they proceed with it always with the same partner, there is no chance to catch the disease from others, don't you think?

[Wolf]

I wonder if the male-control mind-set derives from some form of evolutionary psychology. (For those of you who are unfamilier, it is the idea that modern-day behaviors are pre-programmed into the human psyche due to thousands of years of evolution. Practices that helped human beings survive, or were more conducive to survival, were kept and passed on genetically.)

Here's my thinking: In mankind's early days, males usually did the hunting/fighting bit. When tribes were conquered by other tribes, it was men doing the fighting. One scientist pointed out how one of the motivations in the animalistic-tribal days of our species was to go out and conquer a village for its population of women. The Victor-Tribe would then grow, gain more power, and survive. This extremely animalistic approach ensured survival, in a manner of speaking, and may have been ingrained into human thinking.

***Disclaimer: This is a horrible practice, and discrimination in all of its forms are inherently wrong BECAUSE they reduce humankind to this animalistic state***

As I was saying; this explains the rape-for-control mind-set, as well as the reason why men are so pissed off when a woman does better than them. It is society's fault, in many ways, but it is also the fault of thousands of years of breeding in which these practices were condoned by ancient societies. There are exceptions, but not many, and in each society with an "exception", who are the heroes? The men.

This evolutionary psychology developed in men's minds, yes, but in women's, too. One recent poll showed how women held the fewest executive jobs, but ALSO PURSUED FEWER EXECTUVE JOBS PROPORTIONALLY TO MEN. Not because they were barred or disenfrachised, but in proportion to men, women seek less leadership positions. Meaning that fewer women WANT to have the "man's jobs". Look at how society has objectified beautiful women, look how SO MANY young girls want to look pretty and be popular rather than work for the betterment of themselves and others. It is because women, too, have this preprogammend ideaology inside of them that causes them to accept what is going on. This must change if women are to become the true equals of men. Our society's focus on "sex" is a huge contributor to this horrible problem -- because it is simply a continuation of our ancient days of animal-thinking, bloodshed, domination, and slavery.

[Alia Atreides]

Excellent Post Wolf I could not agree more.

[Edric O]

I seriously doubt that we have any kind of specific behaviour written into our genes. If that were true, then all human societies would share a common structure, at least in part. But as you can see, human cultures and societies are wildly different. There is absolutely NO general social rule that can be said to apply to all cultures. There were (and still are) many female-dominated societies in the world.

It would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have any kind of pre-programmed social behaviour. What makes human beings so successful is that we are incredibly adaptable. Pre-programmed behaviour would hurt that adaptibility, and rob us of our biggest evolutionary advantage.

The problems of modern society are just that: social problems. Some of them are ancient (rape, for example), but others are relatively new. The overwhelming obsession with sex and promiscuity is one of those new problems. I believe it is a symptom of "social depression". Modern society has no ideals, no principles, no purpose. Everything is ordinary and mundane. Everything is explained and solved. There are no mysteries to explore, no frontiers to conquer, no epic challenges to face, no valour or courage to be admired. Quite simply, Mankind is BORED TO DEATH.

[Sneakgab]

‘’Horrible article.

And this is 1955,only 48 years from now,so its not "primitive".And it is only in recent years that women are gaining more power,they are becoming country leaders-Phillipines,Indonesia,New ‘’

I have not read the article, but if the practices within it were obviously unfairly discriminatory then obviously those practices are primitive regardless of how long ago they occurred. Therefore it is known that they are unfair and there is nothing to discuss regarding them. Still, I might take the time to read the article soon

‘’Zealand,England[Margaret Thatcher(was )]But people still oppose their leaderships because they are "afraid that women can't handle the pressure and amount of work"....’’

‘’people’’ consist of both women and men, so obviously no discrimination is involved their…

‘’and now women are also holding high positions in big companies around the world as well,mainly in developing and first-world countries only. ’’

Seeing as ALL developing countries are third world and ALL first-world countries are developed, you’re statement then means that woman are holding high positions in big companies everywhere except in second world countries, which are far and few between

‘’ Caid,

Although your theroy on how AIDS was widespeard due to the abuse of sexual freedom is impressive it is not entirely correct. The speard of AIDS had several factors:

One the sexual revoltion of the 80's in which the homosexual community was at last allowed to come out of the closet, at least here in America, "bathhouses" (meeting places for sex) were opened in San Fransicio where they could openly congregate. ‘’

You do realize how insignificantly small the homosexual population is? Might as well blame a rise in AIDS in monkeys on beastialists (not a good eg but you get the idea, due to beastialists being an even smaller % of the pop)

’’Two, AIDS is a blood-borne disease and again the homosexual community contributed a large population of blood donors in America.

Three even once it was proven that AIDS or GRID as it then called was being spread through the blood, the American Red Cross took several years (not until 1989 did they start screening blood for the AIDS virus) to act upon this information for the simple fact that it did not want to seem discriminatory towards gays nor for this look like a disease you got because you were gay.’’

Surely this can’t be true… risking lives (Ensuring early deaths actually) for the sake of not seeming discriminatory?… Although it seems to me that they didn’t act on this info for the sake of homosexuals anyway, because such an act would not be discrimatory against homosexuals because everyone would be screened (unless you’re saying that homosexuals have some weird blood exchanging rituals I don’t know about or something…:D)

’’Four America and France were both competing to be the first to accurately diagnose and name AIDS first to place their names in medical history as being the first to identify a new deadly disease. Becuase of this they did not share information with one another which could of curtailed the speard of AIDS quicker. To hell that people were dying after all they were only Gay People.

More simply put Politcal Agendas and Competitition were very big factors in the widespeard of AIDS.’’

Not really, considering that most damage caused by AIDS occurred not in America or in Franca but in Africa,Russia,e.t.c (generally 3 world countries… in Russia though, exceedingly high and actually abnormal amount of drug abusing was to blame).

‘’I wonder if the male-control mind-set derives from some form of evolutionary psychology. (For those of you who are unfamilier, it is the idea that modern-day behaviors are pre-programmed into the human psyche due to thousands of years of evolution. Practices that helped human beings survive, or were more conducive to survival, were kept and passed on genetically.)

Here's my thinking: In mankind's early days, males usually did the hunting/fighting bit. When tribes were conquered by other tribes, it was men doing the fighting. One scientist pointed out how one of the motivations in the animalistic-tribal days of our species was to go out and conquer a village for its population of women. The Victor-Tribe would then grow, gain more power, and survive. This extremely animalistic approach ensured survival, in a manner of speaking, and may have been ingrained into human thinking.’’

Impossible (If you are a believer of evolutionism, as you must be to have such a theory), evolutionism takes many thousands of years (well that kind anyway) and cannot keep up with the ways society changes humanity. If you disagree with that then you are saying there is essentially nothing that separates humans from other animals in which case ALL our actions would be motivated by simplistic animalistic behaviors (which I am defying right now by discussing a topic instead of trying to ‘’attract a mate’’). Additionally, almost all groups of humans would be similar to each other if what you’re saying is true. I can provide more reasons why you’re theory must be incorrect if you wish…

No offense, but the rest of you’re post is resulting pointless…

[Alia Atreides]

‘’Horrible article.

And this is 1955,only 48 years from now,so its not "primitive".And it is only in recent years that women are gaining more power,they are becoming country leaders-Phillipines,Indonesia,New ‘’

I have not read the article, but if the practices within it were obviously unfairly discriminatory then obviously those practices are primitive regardless of how long ago they occurred. Therefore it is known that they are unfair and there is nothing to discuss regarding them. Still, I might take the time to read the article soon

‘’Zealand,England[Margaret Thatcher(was )]But people still oppose their leaderships because they are "afraid that women can't handle the pressure and amount of work"....’’

‘’people’’ consist of both women and men, so obviously no discrimination is involved their…

‘’and now women are also holding high positions in big companies around the world as well,mainly in developing and first-world countries only. ’’

Seeing as ALL developing countries are third world and ALL first-world countries are developed, you’re statement then means that woman are holding high positions in big companies everywhere except in second world countries, which are far and few between

‘’ Caid,

Although your theroy on how AIDS was widespeard due to the abuse of sexual freedom is impressive it is not entirely correct. The speard of AIDS had several factors:

One the sexual revoltion of the 80's in which the homosexual community was at last allowed to come out of the closet, at least here in America, "bathhouses" (meeting places for sex) were opened in San Fransicio where they could openly congregate. ‘’

You do realize how insignificantly small the homosexual population is? Might as well blame a rise in AIDS in monkeys on beastialists (not a good eg but you get the idea, due to beastialists being an even smaller % of the pop)

’’Two, AIDS is a blood-borne disease and again the homosexual community contributed a large population of blood donors in America.

Three even once it was proven that AIDS or GRID as it then called was being spread through the blood, the American Red Cross took several years (not until 1989 did they start screening blood for the AIDS virus) to act upon this information for the simple fact that it did not want to seem discriminatory towards gays nor for this look like a disease you got because you were gay.’’

Surely this can’t be true… risking lives (Ensuring early deaths actually) for the sake of not seeming discriminatory?… Although it seems to me that they didn’t act on this info for the sake of homosexuals anyway, because such an act would not be discrimatory against homosexuals because everyone would be screened (unless you’re saying that homosexuals have some weird blood exchanging rituals I don’t know about or something…:D)

’’Four America and France were both competing to be the first to accurately diagnose and name AIDS first to place their names in medical history as being the first to identify a new deadly disease. Becuase of this they did not share information with one another which could of curtailed the speard of AIDS quicker. To hell that people were dying after all they were only Gay People.

More simply put Politcal Agendas and Competitition were very big factors in the widespeard of AIDS.’’

Not really, considering that most damage caused by AIDS occurred not in America or in Franca but in Africa,Russia,e.t.c (generally 3 world countries… in Russia though, exceedingly high and actually abnormal amount of drug abusing was to blame).

‘’I wonder if the male-control mind-set derives from some form of evolutionary psychology. (For those of you who are unfamilier, it is the idea that modern-day behaviors are pre-programmed into the human psyche due to thousands of years of evolution. Practices that helped human beings survive, or were more conducive to survival, were kept and passed on genetically.)

Here's my thinking: In mankind's early days, males usually did the hunting/fighting bit. When tribes were conquered by other tribes, it was men doing the fighting. One scientist pointed out how one of the motivations in the animalistic-tribal days of our species was to go out and conquer a village for its population of women. The Victor-Tribe would then grow, gain more power, and survive. This extremely animalistic approach ensured survival, in a manner of speaking, and may have been ingrained into human thinking.’’

Impossible (If you are a believer of evolutionism, as you must be to have such a theory), evolutionism takes many thousands of years (well that kind anyway) and cannot keep up with the ways society changes humanity. If you disagree with that then you are saying there is essentially nothing that separates humans from other animals in which case ALL our actions would be motivated by simplistic animalistic behaviors (which I am defying right now by discussing a topic instead of trying to ‘’attract a mate’’). Additionally, almost all groups of humans would be similar to each other if what you’re saying is true. I can provide more reasons why you’re theory must be incorrect if you wish…

No offense, but the rest of you’re post is resulting pointless…

To Sneakgab:

You know something I don't know what your problem is ... expect the fact that you have no clue on how to respond to a female since it is obivious that you don't interact with them much... but grow up already because I am getting tired of YOUR IDIOTIC arguements that make no sense... What's the matter can't take that a female is smarter than you sneakgab...

If you don't believe me about the development of the AIDS Epidemic trying READING

And the Band Played On... a well documented historical book on the development of AIDS.

Your other opinions and how we are pointless you can shove right up your ass this is the third post you have made in this thread knocking anything that is said on female discrimination.

And by the way next time you want to take apart what people are saying try quoting our remarks instead of being the coward that you are...

If I get banned or warned on this so be it... I said what I had to say..

[Wolf]

1. Granted, Edric is probably correct in his assessment that male-domination in the world is probably more social than genetic. However, I maintain that evolutionary psychology does play into the problem somewhat. Perhaps it is not as big an issue as the societal problems that have caused this pro-male mind-set, but I think it is a factor. Some of our behavior is indeed pre-programmed, and since male-female relationships have ALWAYS existed, it stands to reason that common past experiences in male-female interaction could have been hardwired into human beings for the sake of expediency. That is how evolution works, after all. Whatever helps survival (not equity, not fairness, nor anything we would necessarily term "good") is what is carried on.

2. Most likely, sexism in the world is due to the current framework of society and tradition. Edric pointed out how cultures have vastly differed. And this is so, but in many respects they have not. Thoughout history, the rich/strong and powerful have ruled the weak. Regardless of whether they were priests, warriors, or kings, the upper class has always existed. The exact form of society may be up to humans to create, but it would seem the *need for society is hardwired into human beings. Why are hermits so erratic? Because in order to exist alone they are forced to defeat much of their mental pre-programming. This gives me hope. Since our hardwired programming can, indeed, be defeated, it stands to reason that we might be able to correct the problems cause by it.

3. On to society. I do not think that it can change without either 1) a catastrophe in which all societies must reevaluate their social structure (I hate to use games for this, but look at Battletanx; a disease wipes out 99% of the world's women, and instantly, women become treasured "Queen-lords"), 2) a revolution (always could use one or two of those), or 3) widespread social changes that, though radical, are generally accepted by government and the upper-crust of society.

However, the possibility of any of these occuring is close to none. Society will exist because of what I will term "the inherent evil in man's will". Edric is correct in saying that the problem is mostly societal, but I argure that this is because society has been shaped and formed by the commonalities of OUR collective will. We, as a people, have not been faithful with regard to each other in how we have shaped the societies that we live in. Our inherent greed, lust for power, urge for control, and just plain enjoyment of sex, has caused us to shape society in a way where the people who began with power (men, since they could kill better) to retain power. Even though widespread reforms have been undertaken (Solution 3) they are not enough, and there is still an underlying sense of inequity. Why? Because that is the way we are.

*Response to Sneakgab: Your premise is incorrect. I was using evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY to describe my argument. I am not referring to standard physical evolution. If you take a psychology course, there is a school of thought called Evolutionary Psychology -- entirely different from DARWINISM, which is what you are referring to. Evolutionary psychology works faster than standard evolution, and it is widely accepted that many of our modern-day behaviors which are UNCONSCIOUS are derived from evolutionary psychology. There are countless examples, and many scientists with whom I could refer to you, but I will keep things simple.

The rest of my post, ahem, was citing evidence to show how evolutionary psychology has altered the perceptions of people throughout history. Notice that our society has rapidly changed in the last 50 years, HOWEVER, as that poll I referenced pointed out, women STILL act, in many ways, as though our society was 100 years ago. Why is this? When asked, women will say that they want to be as good as men -- and this is true. However, women do not literally WORK in competition with men -- women, generally, take "women's" jobs, even though this is changing.

When you say "The rest of your post is meaningless", you are proving yourself wrong. The rest of my post was SUPPORT of the premise in the portion you quoted.

[Edric O]

1. You are correct. And fortunetaly for us, one of the most important traits that we need for survival is adaptability. Thus, although we do have some pre-programmed behaviour, evolution has made us extremely adaptable and capable of living in a wide variety of different environments and a wide variety of different social structures. This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because it means that we are capable of creating a world of harmony and prosperity, where all human beings have their material needs met. A curse, because we are also capable of creating a world of nightmarish evil, a world of violence, slavery and genocide. The choice is up to us.

2. The need to live in society is indeed one of the most basic human instincts, and we are all pre-programmed to have some social behaviour. However, the exact form of that social behaviour is entirely up to us. Also, there are some people who can override the social instinct entirely. As with all instincts, it can be overcome if we really put our mind to it. But in this particular case, it is not desirable to overcome it - all other considerations aside, there simply isn't enough room for all of us to live on this planet unless we congregate in social structures, and without society there wouldn't be any kind of technological progress.

The existence of a ruling class in human society is a remnant of our animalistic past, and it is the cause of many of our problems. However, you should notice that since the beginning of civilization, there has been a constant trend towards limiting the powers of the ruling class and eliminating class differences. Right now, we live in the most democratic and egalitarian society that ever existed on a large scale. It is reasonable to assume that the 5000-year old trend will continue, and our society will become more democratic and egalitarian in the long run.

3. The possibility of any of those things occuring in the near future is close to none. We are not heading for any major catastrophe (I hope), we are not anywhere near a revolution, and the governments of the world are rolling back social reforms and trying to return us to the 19th century. In the short run, the situation looks grim. But in the long run, something must eventually happen. No society can stay the same forever. The easiest way to change things is through government reforms. If that doesn't happen, the people are likely to start a revolution. And if that doesn't happen either (although it's highly unlikely for people to suddenly stop wanting any improvement to their lives), then eventually nature will catch up to us and some sort of catastrophe will force society to change.

Finally, I want to point out the flaws with your "that's just the way we are" argument. If history proves anything, it's that nothing is beyond change. There is always room for improvement. Time and time again, civilizations which have adopted the "it can't get any better than this" slogan have been crushed by more dynamic and open-minded civilizations. Human adaptibility is nearly boundless. It is our duty to push society forward, through reform or revolution, towards more freedom, more justice, and more equality. We already got far from where we started. We can get further still.

If we refuse to move forward under the excuse of being held back by our "nature", then we will share the fate of all other civilizations who took the path of stagnation. Stagnation is death.

[Wolf]

1. Couldn't have said it better myself.

2. Well, that's not necessarily true. There is no law saying that history is linear OR progressive. Ancient Rome had a thriving and democratic Republic. Rome had the first racially integrated army, and would allow people of all races to become citizens should they be willing to serve in the military. Though Roman Society was riddled with class divisions, it was FAR more democratic and egalitarian than the Medieval period of history which followed for the next 1000 years after the fall of the Empire. Though you are MAINLY correct, and that humanity tends to learn from their mistakes, realize that George F. Will was correct in his assessment that "history is a story of inertia... and the unforseen". History is inertia in that you are correct, we learn and improve. However, the unforseen plays its own hand. The actions of one man (Hitler), or the invention of something new (the Bomb), can cause us to regress. Think I'm wrong? Look at the US PATRIOT Act. You are right, generally, we progress. However, there is always the unforseen.

3. I generally agree with you all-around, Edric. You put what I had to say a lot better. More or less, I wanted to point out that while the majority of our behaviors are ours to choose, there are some things that are programmed. But, I did not say "that's just the way we are", if I did say that, I think i was overstating a point. However, I recall saying that we CAN beat the programming, and this is where I agree with you that we as a people can improve.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Human has a minimum preprogrammed things. Most are creating by society, education and also own thinking. As human mind is also limited, many people simply end up with similar thoughts - that creates the conventions, rules for a society. Society is a good thing to preserve, that's one of those common deductions, so we need to educate children, teach them by plan to naturalise some of those conventions. So in fact, nearly whole your person is a work of human mind. Minimally programs. Simply, we are so powerful, that we don't have to adapt, our enviroment must do so.

2. Not necessarily true, it is false. Most animals don't live in societies, but isolated, encountering others only in times of pairing. In fact, social behavior with some "leader" can be seen only in hives (altough queen is better a reproduction slave) and few mammal predator kinds. Most of the others are nearly socialistically equal, altough all have specifical work. However, as here isn't no thinking (of power or justice too), we can't use this model. Humans created authorities for their common good by their minds. Returning to preprogrammed behavior is a step back. Way back.

3. We supress our preprogamation usually. Human soul is a work of God, made to set a conflict between sensitive (animal) and a newer cognitive (human) part. Your animality calls you to fight for resources and reproduce. Humanity tells you to not kill, steal and adulter. As we (as society) don't agree with murdery, theft and adultery, and cognitive soul is fully going by our will, I think preprogamation is obsolete for us. Not only obsolete, if we banish our mind and ride ourselves by animality, we call it sinful.

[Sneakgab]

‘’ Sneakgab:

You know something I don't know what your problem is ... expect the fact that you have no clue on how to respond to a female since it is obivious that you don't interact with them much... but grow up already because I am getting tired of YOUR IDIOTIC arguements that make no sense... What's the matter can't take that a female is smarter than you sneakgab...’’

I know this may cause you more anger, but you’re insults have no meaning on a board where (fortunately, for the sake of charisma not interefering in debates) all one can see is one one’s words. You’re insults have no connotative feel to them (so to speak). Although you’re style of insulting does not rely on the feel of negative word, but rather a slightly more thoughtful method of hurting through insult, it still has no effect as most on this board have become as such that such insults also no longer have a painful edge.

By throwing such insults, you only undermine you’re position by making youre self seem to emotional (To the assuming, this often suggests that the person in question does not usually think very deeply about things)

’’If you don't believe me about the development of the AIDS Epidemic trying READING ‘’

Why don’t you try living in a country where AIDS is almost at it’s most severe effect, such as mine perhaps? ( A third of our population will be wiped out by AIDS in the future, and that’s the best case scenario). The neighbouring countries of where I live do have the absolute worst cases of AIDS (according to record)

’’And the Band Played On... a well documented historical book on the development of AIDS.’’

Are you referring to the link posted earlier in this thread? Still haven’t gotten around to checking (Sorry, but my online time is limited)

’’Your other opinions and how we are pointless you can shove right up your ass this is the third post you have made in this thread knocking anything that is said on female discrimination.’’

Third post? I recall this being the second post I have made, however, I trust you’re memory regarding this. I am not saying that nothing should be done about the blatant forms (or worse) of female discrimination you have mentioned, but discussion on a matter as closed as this is pointless. Must something be done about ongoing slavery in primitive African countries (rare, but you get the idea), discimation based on religion in the middle east,e.t.c ? Of course, it is obvious that these situations must be changed. Resultingly, there is nothing to discuss (although there is much to act on). The same goes for the obvious forms of female discrimination you have mentioned.

Perhaps if you argued about things that may not or may be female discrimination, or atleast turned our attention to more subtle forms of female discrimination, their would be something to discuss or speak about

’’And by the way next time you want to take apart what people are saying try quoting our remarks instead of being the coward that you are...’’

If you’re saying that I should use the quote function, or mention who I am quoting, then I apologize for any inconvenience caused. However, it should not matter to anybody who the person who was quoted was ( In most cases. Evidence of claims/actions is a different story of course) as the quoted material should be judged based on it’s content and not who the poster was

’’If I get banned or warned on this so be it... I said what I had to say..’’

Neither of the two are likely to happen, but as I stated earlier, you have undermined you’re position as people who do not take the time to analyze people carefully may now mistake you to be the kind of person who does not usually think very deeply about his/her thoughts

‘’ *Response to Sneakgab: Your premise is incorrect. I was using evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY to describe my argument. I am not referring to standard physical evolution. If you take a psychology course, there is a school of thought called Evolutionary Psychology -- entirely different from DARWINISM, which is what you are referring to. Evolutionary psychology works faster than standard evolution, and it is widely accepted that many of our modern-day behaviors which are UNCONSCIOUS are derived from evolutionary psychology. There are countless examples, and many scientists with whom I could refer to you, but I will keep things simple.’’

Oops… sorry, I should have guessed that. In that case, I actually pretty much agree with what has been said :-[ :-X (although it must be kept in mind that as stated, humans can override their instincts and/or mental pre-programming)

‘’ When you say "The rest of your post is meaningless", you are proving yourself wrong. The rest of my post was SUPPORT of the premise in the portion you quoted.’’

Well, as I seem to have misunderstood you’re post a bit, and now agree with you, that statement would be correct… further apologies :-[ :-X

[Wolf]

No problem, Sneak. I'm a wordy pseudo-intellecual who likes to sound smart and confuse people.

At least I'm honest. (grins), and at least we agree.

[Sneakgab]

True, besides, you would be surprised how many people accused of psuedo-intellectualism are actually intellectuals... just very lazy ones ;D

[Wolf]

That is true. People like to accuse others of being "pseudo-intellectuals" because they are pissed off that the accused-person just beat them in an argument, or said something that was actually very smart. I think the term was born out of either jealousy, frustration, or both. Personally, I would like to think I am an intellectual, but, hey, you never know. Besides, all of us, including the intellectuals, say stupid things on occasion. You can't judge someone based on a single event, if you do, that's jsut ignorance.

[Sneakgab]

''That is true. People like to accuse others of being "pseudo-intellectuals" because they are pissed off that the accused-person just beat them in an argument, or said something that was actually very smart. I think the term was born out of either jealousy, frustration, or both. Personally, I would like to think I am an intellectual, but, hey, you never know. Besides, all of us, including the intellectuals, say stupid things on occasion. You can't judge someone based on a single event, if you do, that's jsut ignorance. ''

True, to many people are to quick to judge without due consideration of something. Resultingly many people judge somebody elses statements before hearing them out.

Often, if the statement sounded intelligent, they will not listen to further argument (the opposite occurs). This might also be where the term psuedo-intellectualism originated... To me it seems very similar to a sort of more advanced propoganda

We must also remember that intelligence is hard to define and so it is difficult to judge somebody even with the deepest of consideration. An intellectual can know very few hard facts and may seem ''stupid'' when communicating with others, but their are some philosphers who have both those characteristics (although they do usually learn to communicate better

[Wolf]

I agree, even though this topic has veered away from female discrimination. I think discrimination based on intelligence (woohoo, bringing the topic back to the right track) is widespread because people are afraid of the intelligent - intelligence beyond the average challenges the "herd". Its hard to fight the herd, and no one really wants to. Why do you think that conservatives can get away with tremendous leaps in logic, and still have a good number of supporters? It takes some personal honesty to be a liberal, now and then, even though that's something we feel is dangerous to us.

Female discrimination works the same way. Why do men flip out when a woman challenges their position more than when a man does? It violates this herd mentality, and threatens people with an introduction of "unknown" intellegence. Just in the same way nerds, geeks, and pseudo-intellectuals are presecuted, smart women, and even smart men, are equally as prosecuted. It works with everyone, because everyone in a social system is trying to jockey themselves upwards, and usually people are okay with resorting to devaluing others to do so.