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



I vaguely remember a case study of a man who, after a car crash (or it might have been an industrial accident) suddenly became absolutely convinced that he was (IIRC) Chinese. It does seem to be a thing. However the guy in the video just seems slightly nuts.


You may be on to something there. He did seem a little addled and confused. Maybe he got into a fender bender in his tuk tuk.


Did you just assume that person’s gender? In current year???


Did you watch the video? He actually admits sheepishly to being male.


Too much Tanduay, perhaps. That stuff can fuck you up :slight_smile:


He was pressured and/or tricked into it by the patriarchy, no doubt about it.


Sounds like you’re diagnosing a whole country there. :wink:


Well, if you put methanol in a bottle, colour it brown, and sell it for P150, it’s going to have consequences. Just sayin’.


Your exact words on the subject:

Do some googling. It’s very interesting. For example, have a look at historical clothing or from unfamiliar cultures. With very few exceptions (children’s clothing, for example) you’ll find you can easily guess which item is for men and which for women.

Together with your thoughts on the non-existence of female coal miners (because the Honourable Member from Finleyndia had never heard of them), your thoughts on clothing led me to think my hyperbole constituted an appropriate form of satire. My humblest apologies if the Honourable Member is offended. :bowing:

And when did I state otherwise?

First of all, no a cabbage cannot be a blank slate. It also has preconfigurations. (Of course then we need to define blank and slate…)

But I didn’t say humans are blank slates. I said gender roles are socially constructed.

Gender role means different things in different contexts. Suppose you have one dance in which the male leads and another in which the female leads. You can try rationalizing the first as this is because testosterone makes men natural leaders or the second as this is because dance is a frivolous pastime for ladies that men shouldn’t have to spend time thinking about, but the meaning of each dance is whatever people decide it means for them, and the social consensus of what each dance means is a social construct.

If these dances are practiced by different cultures, and you get big, strong, manly men from each culture organizing an angry mob to burn down the dance hall of the other culture because each one considers the other depraved and catastrophically dangerous (“they want to turn the world upside down!”), it’s easy to see the conflict as a socially constructed one.

When you impregnate someone or become pregnant, that’s a biological fact. When you gain recognition as a person’s partner, that’s a social construct (or decision, consensus, or whatever word you like). It doesn’t necessarily mean you and the other person have conceived or will conceive, nor does conception necessarily mean you are partners for social and economic purposes. So if the rule in a common law jurisdiction that you automatically gain partnership recognition and the corresponding rights and responsibilities – whether you like it or not – after living with someone for x amount of time is revised, it’s not because anyone’s biology has changed or even because scientists now have a greater understanding of biology than when the rule was created. It’s because society has changed and wants the law to be more compatible with the new social(ly constructed) situation.

Similarly, if a society deems a “skirt” (such as a kilt) a good, solid choice for manly men, that’s a social construct. If it deems the same article of clothing something that no man other than a sexual predator would wear, that’s also a social construct.

This does not negate any biological facts. (If you have research proving Scotsmen and various Southeast Asians are deficient in testosterone, that may change my thoughts on clothing.)

I really don’t have time to read thousands of pages of archaic research just to know where I’ve gone wrong in my thoughts on mollusks and heteropteryxes. If your point is simply that Masters & Johnson would have agreed with Baron-Cohen, then what’s the problem? :idunno:


What Norwegians? you mean the “gender researchers”? To be Norwegians doesn’t make you automatically retarded.

Keep in mind that it’s not only about economical development but also “gender equality” what some of these scientists were looking at.

It’s not just that amuses me. It’s the whole picture and they being on denial, without a single argument that sounds remotely reasonable. They are trying to rationalize their posture, but they have an initial posture, then they come up with bullshit theories that they can’t back up with any real study or numbers, and then they say “it’s the way I see the things, you have to convince me” and “I don’t care about those scientific studies because… I don’t have time for those things!”.

It’s the whole picture @yyy, it’s a ridiculous posture that goes against common sense. You can say "hey, there are lots of things that are antiintuitive and you would be right. But their posture implies to see things in a complicated, unlikely way, and deny the obvious, what first hand, day to day experience tells you. And then there are the studies that confirm what everybody knows.

To me gender studies and LGBT religion is no different from acupuncture, homeopathy and anti vaccine movements: the product of a mix of stupidity, the need to believe on something alternative, mental problems overcompensation and some sort of paranoia.

PS: I read about neuro linguistic programming and TBH I din’t give it much credit. But of course words can and do have an effect on people. But what’s the effect, on what areas of your life, and what degree? I don’t really think that anybody who is not a “gender studies” believer would say that girls tend to take more human-related or art related jobs and men tend to drive trucks, break their legs doing downhill and work in construction or as engineers because the voices their parents use with them when they are babies…

PS2: You forgot to mention that research that shows that girls and boys at ages as early as a few weeks spend more time looking at totally different types of toys.


I’m going to unlike you!


Um, guys, not just Mr. J but all of you, are you all assuming that because I’m not jumping up and down or foaming at the mouth about the thoughts of a few Norwegians, I have to agree with them? :confused:


No, but you are enjoying diminishing “our” posture, which consists basically in this: what gender “researchers” say is nonsense.

I’m going to unlike all your posts that I liked before.


I always figured your M.O. was to just basically disagree with pretty much everyone for obscure, pedantic reasons. Kind of like a devil’s advocate, but less racy.


I don’t like this guy either. He’s always onto something. Let’s find him and give him a good beatup.


@yyy are you coming to the next Forumosans’ dinner? I keep hearing good things about it!


You need to see it to understand it.

I didn’t forget. That’s the study on 9-month-olds. The study on 1-day-olds is more convincing, as I said. Did you even read my post? :stuck_out_tongue:


Hey, someone has to be pedantic. :slight_smile:


I love you too, Jesus. :heart:


I wasn’t complaining or anything. Merely an observation.