Gender studies are nonsense with zero scientific, rational or logic basis to them - The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
, , ,
1

I already linked this once or twice, but now that I’m watching it again I have to post it again.

Obviously gender studies go against common sense. Most of the people who support these gender theories are somewhat fanatic, deranged, hysterical and definitively not examples of rational beings. Also it should make you suspect who benefit from them, and how. However, some people could still try to argue with some arguments that I feel lazy to discuss, honestly.

IF you are genuinely interested in the topic, you might have heard about the “gender equality paradox”: in those countries that are more “advanced” in terms of “gender equality” and freedom, women and men tend clearly to make those choices that… are what gender “studies” point as results of sexist phalocratic heteropatriarchy. How could it be?

Norway was some years ago in the top of the rank of gender equality. The top one. And they had this situation. NORMAL people would just assume that the two sexes are just attracted to different things, while gender “researches” would of course reject this backwards idea. Everything is a social construct!

Well, the documentary I’m posting here had some consequences for these bullshitters. The government cancelled these moronic programmes after the debate that this TV show generated.

Some time ago somebody was asking here where to go to study gender “studies” in Taiwan. That’s fine if you want to get money from others’ taxes, but it’s not going to take you anywhere near the truth. It’s just bullshit. It’s produced by people on denial. There’s no real basis for supporting those theories. They are not even theories because they haven’t followed the scientific method.

It’s just nonsense. Bullshit. Moronic, hysterical claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

1 Like
2

I would like to stress how poorly gender “researchers” build their arguments. It’s just neurotic talking, trying to deny the obvious. They can’t use logic to say A and B then C. They just accuse scientists of being evil and obsessed with Biology and genetics… but they are exactly what they criticize: people obsessed with one postulate and zero evidences to back it up.

Really, I can’t understand how people can believe this bullshit. Obviously these theories suppose some relief for them and their problems. And that’s it. Either that or the money they get for “researching” and teaching this nonsense.

2 Likes
3

Obviously gender studies go against common sense. Most of the people who support these gender theories are somewhat fanatic, deranged, hysterical and definitively not examples of rational beings. Also it should make you suspect who benefit from them, and how. However, some people could still try to argue with some arguments that I feel lazy to discuss, honestly.

Obviously

I feel a rhetorical fallacy coming on.

Such a concept does not exist outside internet forum posters’ appeal to it.

I’m struggling to see the rationality behind this assertion.

And no true Scotsman would bother arguing on the internet, either.

Assertion

Assertion

Assertion

Well, quite.

Hmm…

People like that are awful, aren’t they?

2 Likes
4

Whatever. Just watch it and then come back to comment on it. Probably you will enjoy it a lot and will tell me how biased this TV was :wink:

5

Indeed.

6

I’ve looked into the matter. Gender equality was very important 100 or 200 years ago. I don’t see much gender discrimination anymore even with the pay gap. I wouldn’t say there isn’t room for greater equality though.

As for gender studies… I think that is important too. As these non-binary folks come out of the woodwork we will start to evolve or ideas of the role of men and women in life. Maybe even forget the nuclear family or forget about the man as the provider.

edit: Taiwan has a bigger problem with Gender Equality than the US in my opinion.

7

How many “non binay folks” do you think there are out there, and how much social change power do they suppose?

I mean, I don’t know anybody born less than 70 years ago that says that women have to do this, and men have to do that, and I believe that people can do whatever they feel with their bodies and feelings, but some of these people are trying to impose what can be said what can’t be. Ultimately they claim that Nature is sexist. These people say that there are “studies” done at universities that have proven these theories, but they don’t know how anti scientific and marginal these studies are.

My studies and profession are strongly related to logic. I’m a rationalist that then just follows his heart instead of his brain, but I still tend to analyze the logic in things, break down things into pieces and different types of relationships. I see a BIG difference between how one and another sides build their arguments.

And I don’t like universities being degraded by pseudosciences like this.

Do whatever you want, but don’t be offended because we don’t believe or use your theories and conventions.

8

I’m pretty logical too. I don’t have much of an opinion of the “they/them” debate but I do see that our gendered pronouns force people to conform to the binary genders. The talk about men not being providers stems from my own fears of not being man enough. I would caution against taking a firm stance unless you are an expert because this is a very nuanced argument.

9

Well, maybe I’m tremendously wrong, but gender in words come originally from sex (at least when it comes to animated sexual entities such as humans and other animals). I think that the way one feels about his or her “gender” is totally irrelevant when it comes to language use. Languages are for communicating with other people. Of course there’s much more than meaning to words, like for example intention. But I don’t see any reason for changing the gender of a word just because a woman or a man feels he or she is the opposite gender or sex or whatever. That’s their feelings about something, not a description of a reality.

You can argue what level or reality we should refer to when addressing or talking to another person. I think that the simpler the better, the more descriptive the better.

You have to be very thin skinned or have mental problems / traumas for feeling insulted when somebody uses “he” for referring to you if you have a penis hanging between your legs. What is so insulting about it? It’s just a descriptive, effective, efficient way of speaking.

Genders are not social constructs. Women and man like in average different things, and there are evolutionary and chemical reasons for that, and of course, and in a smaller degree, social reasons too. Nobody denies the importance of society. But these gender nutters deny the importance of body’s chemistry. :roll_eyes:

10

And sorry, I shouldn’t have written much, I just wanted this video to be watched. It’s not about what I think, it’s more about something that happened: the most advanced country in the World in terms of “gender equality” showed how people of the same sex tend to like and make choices different (in average) from the ones made by the opposite sex. This seemed to be a paradox for all those gender “researches”. Even further, Norway wasn’t an exception, that’s actually the norm. There are very simple explanations for this, which match with what any normal scientific study says. However, this doesn’t make sense if you believe these gender “studies”. When these “researchers” face reality, they can’t articulate any coherent explanation for it.

As a consequence of the debate that came after this TV show, Norway decided to stop subsidizing this nonsense.

Now, watch the video, and think about all this.

12

I’m no expert but I am familiar with the movement and the counter movement calling these gender-deniers some sort of wackos. I caught a podcast of Joe Rogan talking about how encouraging women to join typically male dominated areas of work backfired to some degree.

This, to me, is just the beginning of a conversation that might take a generation to understand. Sure, people that don’t mind placating millennials might buy into the movement early but they are wrong to accept this change without challenge.

Just imagine if someone said, “Being a mother is the most important job in the world.” Should they be paid accordingly? Now imagine if you got to be a mother…

13

Personally I think this is where it all went wrong. I blame the economists. In fact, whenever anything goes wrong, I blame the economists.

Childcare is an important job. This isn’t obvious to a lot of people (especially economists). But it really is. Mothers have been doing this for free for an awful long time. Fathers have been doing so in a slightly more hit-and-miss fashion. And they do it not because somebody gives them bits of green paper, but because they think it’s important.

There are lots of other things that people do for free, because they think it’s important. Economists, however, are busy telling us all that the only valid reason for doing anything is if you’re being paid, and that if you’re not being paid, your work is by definition worthless.

Thus we have now have twice as many people sitting in offices doing their David Brent routine, and some of the David Brents are female. Meanwhile, a whole generation of kids wonder why mum thinks her Excel spreadsheets are more important than they are. All this is a triumph for gender equality, of course. Freeeeedoooooom!

Incidentally, I realise there are certain posters who think I’m saying women shouldn’t be allowed to work in offices, and should remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where they belong. I am merely pointing out that you should be able to have anything you want in life, regardless of whether you are male or female, but you do have to (a.) know what you want and then (b.) choose what you want, bearing in mind (c.) that nobody gets everything they want.

Since we are limited by space and time, then one can choose to either be at the office gossiping about who shagged whom at the weekend, in which case some dull-eyed teenager will be pretending to care for your offspring, or you can simply care for your offspring yourself. The number of people with Gender Studies degrees will make no difference to this fundamental reality.

3 Likes
14

I mean if money wasn’t an issue, most people probably would find staying at home raising a child to be more fulfilling than killing themselves at work 40-80 hours to get ahead men or women. Most people work either out of necessity for money or social pressures. Not many people actually find meanful careers that matter and fulfill them besides psychopaths like my dad who are willing to kill themselves working 80 hour weeks on call all the time and taking clients to drink for business and coming home puking all for the sake of getting on top vs actually money at some point. I think when we talk about wage inequality, people think of rich men who are basking in money drinking scotch on a yacht or something. I mean some do from the very few families with tremendous wealth that most people will never even come close to in their entire life.

We can’t really say women entering the work force has only produced positive economic and social consequences. And that’s not saying women shouldn’t work. It’s just that objectively, it did produce consequences, some can be perceived and anaylized as positive and some could been seen as negative.

So I honestly feel like in countries with good quality of life. Women might gravitate to being a stay at home mom with their child because they don’t need to work for money to survive.

1 Like
15

It depends on the meaning of (1) gender and (2) social construct.

Some people distinguish sex from gender by saying the former is physiological and the latter psychological.

If you grow up alone on an island with no books etc., you will have no concept of your own gender, unless you spend your time observing reproduction in nature and contemplating your anatomy, and then you manage to extrapolate that you have a biological capacity that relates to the opposite/complementary capacity of a hypothetical other human being somewhere in the universe, whatever that being might look like.

You still might make an incorrect assumption, especially if you spend time watching bees interacting with flowers and figure that’s how it works. :honeybee: :sunflower: :doh: To say nothing of what would happen if you spent your time observing mollusks… :confused: :ponder: :eek:

Some examples of this kind of mistake spring to mind. Anthropologists reported at least one society that believed sex is a normal part of life but has nothing to do with reproduction, because reproduction happens anyway. :rainbow: :baby: There was also at least one society that believed it was necessary for both partners to climax at the same time, or else conception would not occur. (Talk about gender equality! :balance_scale:) And you can always search for “when I was young I thought…” anecdotes.

If several babies are placed on an island and grow up there with each other but with no books etc., they will probably end up having what could be described as gender roles (even if they’re all male or all female), but not necessarily matching our expectations.

One way or another, roles get constructed, socially. The construction of roles may be said to have a biological basis, just like the inclination to use variations on “ma” as the word for mother in almost every language is said to have a biological basis, but we aren’t born with full vocabularies, and it’s hard to see a human being born with a precisely defined role in society (at this point in history). :2cents:

1 Like
16

But you would have no need for the social construct of gender if this was the case no? Isn’t the weakness of saying gender is a social construct that it’s a social construct? Meaning its whole purpose is to help navigate society and social situations? Would it not be no longer useful if we just say some people say they can be whatever gender they feel like? How am I or anyone suppose to know what gender they identify with? I mean I guess if a biological man dressed up in a dress would be obvious in that maybe the person identify as a women? But who knows, maybe I just feel like wearing a dress for whatever reason. It just seem that if it’s no longer useful in navigating society, it wouldn’t make any sense. All social construct is there to make sense of how to interact with each other and our place in society right? If there are multiple genders, and I don’t know what you identify as, what am I suppose to do? Am I supposed to guess, am I supposed to ask each person I meet hey what gender do you identify with so I can properly interact with them?

17

Exactly, unless some animals choose to interact with you differently based on how they perceive your gender (I can imagine some primates doing that), but that would be a de facto society. It’s like how there would be no need for government if there were only one person in the world, but as soon as you have two people, you’re going to get a de facto government one way or another.

Suppose society forbids wearing a certain color unless you belong to a certain social class. That’s obviously a social construct, even if membership in that class has some biological basis like sharing DNA with certain other people (a royal family, a caste, etc.).

After a social change, people may consider the rule stupid and say anyone can wear that color. It doesn’t mean you no longer share DNA with those people (though maybe you never did – mistaken identity), just that society no longer finds it useful to structure itself the same way as before.

For now, all societies I can think of have gender roles, though with varying degrees of flexibility in some areas. There are practical implications both in social interaction (how you greet someone, whether or not it’s appropriate to be alone with the person, etc.) and in law (maternity leave vs. paternity leave, whether or not you automatically become your roommate’s common law spouse after a certain period, etc.), and these differences are not necessarily satisfactory.

I think the question of whether recent attempts to change social, linguistic and legal standards for people who feel non-binary have been well thought out or not was addressed in a fairly rational way in Ironlady’s post in the other thread.

1 Like
18

Exactly, unless some animals choose to interact with you differently based on how they perceive your gender (I can imagine some primates doing that), but that would be a de facto society. It’s like how there would be no need for government if there were only one person in the world, but as soon as you have two people, you’re going to get a de facto government one way or another, and animals also have ways of governing.

Suppose society forbids wearing a certain color unless you belong to a certain social class. That’s obviously a social construct, even if membership in that class has some biological basis like sharing DNA with certain other people (a royal family, a caste, etc.).

After a social change, people may consider the rule stupid and say anyone can wear that color. It doesn’t mean you no longer share DNA with those people (though maybe you never did – mistaken identity), just that society no longer finds it useful to structure itself the same way as before.

For now, all societies I can think of have gender roles, though with varying degrees of flexibility in some areas. There are practical implications both in social interaction (how you greet someone, whether or not it’s appropriate to be alone with the person, etc.) and in law (maternity leave vs. paternity leave, whether or not you automatically become your roommate’s common law spouse after a certain period, etc.), and these differences are not necessarily satisfactory.

I think the question of whether recent attempts to change social, linguistic and legal standards for people who feel non-binary have been well thought out or not was addressed in a quite rational way in Ironlady’s post in the other thread.

19

yyy: all of the hypotheses you put forward have been tested in incredible detail and shown to be, if not false, then at least “I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That” (Goldacre). Scientists have always had a fascination for contemplating their dangly bits.

The problem is that this was all done back in the 50s and 60s, and people think that because it was all done by patriarchal men in white coats (it wasn’t) the results are automatically invalid.

As do men also, given the opportunity, but there aren’t many societies like that.

I happened to be in London a few weeks back, and I had to take the bus at the start of rush hour - about 7am. I was struck by how f’ing miserable everyone looked. Men, women, all races. All with faces like a smacked arse. I genuinely felt sorry for them, they looked that awful. Now, OK, it’s 7am and most people don’t look their best at 7am. But these were people living half a life. It was written all over them. But they do it because they “have to”.

Indeed. And the SJWs never ask themselves: why do we have these pressures? Is it possible that they are artificially created? There appears to be NO far-reaching social or economic benefit in having lots of lots of women going out to work so that they can pay for other women to look after their sprogs, so perhaps there is some more narrow benefit that’s been overlooked?

Perhaps, in fact, the elite that they so despise are STILL sitting in their leather-chaired rooms with brandy and cigars, laughing even harder than they ever were, having managed to enslave even more people than they thought possible, while convincing the great unwashed that it was all their idea?

1 Like
22

Nah… now seriously.

As @yyy said, it all depends on how you define gender. Indeed, yesterday I said someone that feminists and gender “researchers” are making a big fuss out of something simple, and unnecessary fuss.

The need to talk about “gender” only to deny that it exists. I personally believe that society is a projection of nature in great degree. Sexes have “homogeneous” characteristics, both physical and mental. I understand that many years ago women wanted freedom for doing things that were forbidden to them, or even just not socially accepted, but we have moved forward greatly, right? The problem is that feminists and other disgraceful people are not happy yet, and now they want to convince you that women and men are the same, and if they aren’t it’s just because we are oppressing one sex, constraining them into something called “gender role”. While this may happen in some cases, in some degree, it’s like everything: people will say, people will think, people will comment. Always. And there may or may not be reasons for saying, commenting, thinking. But who the fuck cares? women are free to do whatever they want in modern societies, there’s no mysterious social force making a woman what she is. Yeah, social conventions are there, but women are women, men are men, and the rules and thoughts and social conventions are just part of the formula, and not only that, are the result of human beings as complex systems inwards and outwards and they living on the Earth for many thousands of years, making societies evolve.

Do I like exercise because the images that society has created, or the society has just reflected the need of doing one or another type of physical activity that healthy people have?

Same with sex, gender, and gender roles. They exist or not, but the people who care the most about them are also the ones who deny them and don’t even understand that they come after biological and psychological features.

AND they want to use their “gender role” choices as if it were the SEX that appears on the ID card. If gender is a social construct, why to give it such importance? no country refers or should refer to the gender role on the ID cards!

28

But… has anybody watched the freaking video???