Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever

[lightgigantic]

Perfect. Post something that indirectly attacks certain people.

and what exactly does this post of yours rank as?

 

[Sarkus]

and to say that change is good is to say the future is more preferable than the past

Quite true - and note how I didn't say it - but you seem to have assumed I did, merely by arguing against your implication.
Change is change. Whether it is "good" or "bad" is subjective.

the solution to such conflicting suggestions however lies in an analysis of the present

If and of itself? That won't get you far.

strange since you haven't even ventured how your general premise operates on a different principle to mine ....

That is because you have made an erroneous assumption of what my general premise might be.

atheists that have a sense of gender simply aren't practicing strictly enough?

Having a sense of gender is very different to being told what each gender has to do and the roles they have to fill.

fortunately people involved in family support and human services have a different outlook

And your evidence for this claim? Or is this just another of your confidence statements?
I would suggest that a large portion of gender issues results from a lack of respect between people with regard their rights to choose - with those like you on one side expecting old-fashioned gender roles to be carried out, while on the other side there are those who feel that we should be respected for whatever role we wish to have for ourselves, albeit one that fits within society as a whole, and societies aims.

correction - everyone should make informed decisions

No - everyone should make decisions. It would be preferable if they could make informed decisions, but it is everyones' right to make a decision whether they are well- or badly- informed on the matter.

I guess first you would have to establish what is meant by these words good and bad

I leave that to you - as it was you who first implied that the gender confusion is to be discouraged.

so far you seem to have suggested that it is a good thing if a person achieves a status in society that they have chosen - so IOW if a person chooses to sell heroin that is a good thing (regardless of whether they get caught by the police or not - hey it may make their life a bit less structured, but that is not necessarily a bad thing)

Strawman - and look - I bolded it for you so you couldn't miss it.

My comment was, as you quoted earlier in your response: "Everyone should be able to fit the role of their (and society's) choice" and again I have bolded the important part.
You, instead, have decided to take only an element - i.e. out of context - and thus reached a logically flawed conclusion.

if those differences are unique and if they don't do it, it begs the question who will

So you would force women to conceive even if they don't want to?
You do realise how old-fashioned, out-dated and morally disgusting you are coming across as with this statement?
You shock me, LG. Truly.

the issue becomes even more complex if there is dominant propaganda that playing a particular sport is low grade and not deserving of any respect, and that even if you are the world's number one at it, you are better off pursuing a career in haiku poetry or something

Strawman Utterly irrelevant as a response to the question I asked.
Please answer the question posed: "Does a person HAVE to play a sport merely because they are exceptionally good at it?"

Ever heard of the TFR (total fertility rate)?

Yes thanks. Total fertility rates are irrelevant as you were claiming the rates were insufficient to maintain the population. The stats given to you show otherwise. Now, are you willing to concede your claim, or are you now going to change your stance?

yes and thats the issue - will it change for better or worse

It will change. Better or worse is a subjective matter - and the less indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking (e.g. religious) the more easily you will see that the human society evolves - the workable societies in a given environment survive, the unworkable ones die out. When the environment changes, those societies that adapt will continue - those that don't could die out.

erm - were you born of a mother and father?

Strawman. How does this answer the question I asked?
Yet again it is merely another flippant question seemingly posed in response to a question that you are unable to actually answer. Please stop doing it.
Now, answer the question, if you would be so kind... rephrased:
Where did you get the so-called "simple fact that progressive civilization requires distinctions of gender"?

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

and let me guess - those changes were not engineered by persons who advocated ideologies to challenge existing ones?

I think it's funny how you use words like "engineering". You're giving the feminists a lot of credit. And it's really funny that you're worried about "engineering" while pushing religious propaganda.

if we placed your contribution to antagonism on one side of the scales and measured it against the OP I think you would come out as the heavy weight champion

Wow.



Talk to me about that when I have an international ministry and have been experimenting with social engineering for a few decades.

because you seem to have unresolved conflict issues on the subject

That almost made sense.

so you want to argue that the social impact of motherhood is a non-issue?

See, now you're not even trying.

the degradation of civilization progresses at the rate of successive generations of poorly equipped offspring

Ah.

And the connection between poorly equipped offspring and the "terror of feminization"?

and no, first world consumerism is not a shining example of values

See, there's something we could talk about if you weren't so hung up on hating women.

I am saying that women suffer in mutual relationships with corrupted notions of obligation and that they also suffer in the role of single mothers (with or without the notions of obligation) - at least in comparison to a mutual relationship with properly established notions of obligation
(putting aside issues of availability, do you think most mothers would prefer to be involved in supportive relationships with the father of their children or go through the ecstasy of divorce/single parenting?)

Maybe I should have split that one because your latter parenthetic note is its own question. As to the first part, there are two important points you've overlooked. First, women are humans, and humans suffer. It's part of what makes us human. Secondly, properly established notions of obligation are established between the participants in such a relationship. To prescribe them according to abstract principles ignores the question of "What do I want for/from this person?" in favor of, "Do I really want to be this person's ______?"

As to your parenthetic note, that has as much to do with the fathers as the mothers, and the problems you fear are more densely distributed closer to certain traditions that include religious faith and attendant social obligations.

given the ever increasing statistical likelihood of divorce and delinquency of children, it appears that a few things are missing from such attempts of family planning

It's a cute cartoon, Lightgigantic, but further suggests your lack of sincerity.

[BTW (just to save you from another hatred-of christian-inspired-sermon-on-the-mount) teaching values is a complex issue - ie you cannot establish "respect" by flooding the world with "hate" - values are taught by idealized conduct

So ... why are you calling for a return to disrespectful standards of old? Make it easier for you to talk to women?

Straight away I guess it might be asked what relevance any talk of idealized conduct might have in our gritty, down-to-earth world, where “cool” means being shallow, sullen, self-obsessed, sexually absorbed, emotionally numb, relentlessly materialistic and contemptuous of authority?

..... well there we have our idealized conduct
(gulp)

So the solution to the effects of everyone's behavior is to put women back in their place?

and lo and behold, telling others what they can and can't do is also what you are about - does that make us equal?

I never understood that stupid argument from conservatives: Oh, boo-hoo, I won't "let" you hate and discriminate? Give me a freakin' break.

Once again, if you think matriarchy can exist without defined gender roles, its simply more ideology (or alternatively bitter grapes from the whole shot-to-bits social scene of the west)
IOW it seems you are just plugging away with rhetoric as a substitute for the experience and knowledge of how woman can and do control their husbands
.... at the very least, the inadequacies of experience of 2nd wave feminism (which is what you appear to embody) is what paved the way for 3rd wave feminism

When do we get to tenth-degree black belt feminism?

so you want to argue that feminism in no way shaped the image of masculinity in society?

Why would I argue that?

so you want to argue that feminism in no way shaped the image of masculinity in society?

Casting feminism as a manipulative, mythical super-villain is just one of those stupid exercises in diversion.

Why are you so afraid of women?

what do they call attacking the person instead of the argument in discussion again?

Fine. You dragged out misogynistic Christian propaganda as your topic starter.

Better?

In this case, however, the person is an unreliable propaganda artist, so his credentials are reasonably in doubt.

Quit whining.

what do they call attacking the person instead of the argument in discussion again?

Why are you so upset that nobody read your mind?

I should have just axed the authors name

Wouldn't have helped much.

(A) The message is repugnant, and would have drawn all manner of criticism, anyway.
(B) Enter the first sentence "quoted" into Google, and the essay can be identified as Dobson's.
(C) Posted as anonymous and then identified as Dobson, the article would have probably met the Cesspool immediately.​

even I had posted a statement by Dobson about the price of oranges you would probably still paint the forum in antagonism

Nope. I would have redirected it to Religion or Economics. Or the Cesspool. Depends on what he was doing with the oranges.

I would have more respect for you if you would take such topics to the religion thread - now we wouldn't want to start talking off topic and get the post redirected would we. little miss moderator?

I would have more respect for you if you weren't a two-bit, disingenuous propaganda hack.

If you have to hide behind forum delineation in order to avoid the credibility problem that comes with using doctrinal selfishness to decry selfishness, you're not being honest.

"try" is the operative word

And it would be the least you could do.

its not clear how issues of gender play a prominent role in divorce settlements?

Nope. If you see a correlation, that might come from the fact that the participants in those settlements were positioned within the structure according to older sex-role constrictions.

I don't have issues with being equal in front of the law - I am just trying to bring you to the point that such a notion is metaphysical - if you could understand that then perhaps you could see the problems of labeling "equal rights" as synonymous with it

I think you're splitting the hair. And that does make sense, as long as "equality" is subordinate to sex-role prejudice.

how about indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher?

La Pieta Maggie?

you want to argue that with or without a dysfunctional family atmosphere, children develop in the same fashion?

You may be applying a really broad and oversensitive definition of "dysfunctional".

to those highly steeped in eurocentricity, anything outside it is mythical

Should we pretend that those dedicated to phallocentrism are somehow grounded in reality?

only because a new ideology came on the scene to suggest otherwise - like the TV documentary broadcast in the OP

And there we see the heart of the argument. Let's look at that as a proposition and response, because it's such an important point:

... social systems of mutual obligation at least in this cultural lineage, haven't been equal for a long time.

only because a new ideology came on the scene to suggest otherwise - like the TV documentary broadcast in the OP​

Thank you for making the point.

if women can come to the position of power in a way that 2nd wave feminism cannot dream of, its obvious that you have miscalculated some thing in your equation of gain

Interesting. But a non-sequitur.

and some people can ride a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling and some people cannot ride even a tricycle
still, we see that a general pattern tends to emerge

The simplicity of your analogy is telling. Neither family nor social dynamics are as simplistic as the expectations underlying your argument.

agreed
but as a further point, the solution to this problem lies in the role of obligation between the genders being re-established (through the medium of respect) and not high tailing out further into the cosmos of selfishness

You're right. The way to stop drowning is to simply drown.

once again we are back at your wild card of "equality" which can mean anything from equal rights (rights to what exactly?) to equal before the law

If your definitions were stable and grounded in something resembling reality, equality wouldn't seem such a wild-card.

yes, technically its impossible for a single parent to get divorced (without forming a second relationship), but given the elasticity of contemporary law perhaps such an absurdity could be accommodated in the future

Um ... whatever you say?

more confused than ever

Well, fit those people neatly into your gender scheme.

Have at it.

it certainly was glaringly conspicuous that men who have sex change operations to become lesbians were completely neglected by the survey

Maybe none answered? How can you tell? Give us your analysis, please.

See, when you post stupid crap like that, we recognize that you're not being sincere.

perhaps in the 70's radical concepts of sexuality were heralded as the panacea for all gender issues (it was trendy to have a partner that was bisexual)

.... , needless to say, any which way you hang it, people are still feeling horrible about themselves (or alternatively, through the filter of selfishness it becomes "deny everything, blame everyone, be bitter")

Well, feeling horribly about oneself is an important aspect of Abramic cultures.

you don't have to be a PhD in sociology to understand that the old ones become the dead ones and the young ones become the old ones

And?

unfortunately, you are yet to offer any tenable solution - unless you want to argue that the establishment of single parent families has removed the burden of social necessity

You don't get it yet, do you? There is no magic pill.

We're humans. Figuring out this society thing is a lot more complicated than pretending that assigned sex and gender roles will fix what assigned sex and gender roles have broken.

yep
flip that wild card any which way

Well, if you weren't so insincere about your argument, you might be able to understand such concepts.

once again - equality has a metaphysical status - if you think it can be achieved without respect, its just some lop-sided ideology speaking through you (there's no social evidence to say the least)

What an interesting comment. It's so irrelevant I wonder why you include it.

keeping cozy by burning all those strawmen?

Your argument looks like what the cows leave, and it smells like what the cows leave. Don't try to tell me it's a freakin' cookie.

given that most people who appear for conviction in courts are likely to have performed crimes that bring to bear issues of motherhood or fatherhood (not too many people appear in court charged with shooting 2 dozen people), its not clear why you think it did or should operate otherwise

It's a good thing I've stopped taking you seriously, else I might wonder what you're trying to say. ("Did Timmy fall down a well?")

to be inhumane is certainly possible for us

Okay. Right. And?

lol - now would be a good time to establish your ontological status

Yawn.

ahem - other people who arrived after you set the religious band wagon in motion (and other people who are not heralded as being neutrally agnostic either)

Okay ... let's see ... Maybe if you had a specific context in mind you should have posted that at the outset, not after throwing a hissy fit.

and what picture do you think a mod on their forum driving home an issue that can only be addressed by going off topic while simultaneously threatening to post it in the cesspool creates?

Yeah, well, if people taking issue with the topic post is your definition of "off-topic", there's nothing I can do to help you.

You should stop and consider what you are sold out to - it could save you from jumping the gun on assuming what others are sold out to

Um ... oh! Thbpbpbpbpbpt!

Seriously, dude ... you insist that the only discussion we have must define the world in Dobson's terms, and you get upset that people would invoke any other perspective of the world.

Quit whining.

Once again, I wasn't aware how thoroughly I would have to defend the ramparts

Actually, you went to great efforts to create this debacle.

well, not a religious discussion, to say the least

Discussing ethics and morals without considering their components is a bit like discussing recipes without considering food.

(if a biologist can have an opinion about society that can be addressed outside of discussions of biology, why can't religious persons have an opinion about society that cannot be addressed outside of religion?)

When the opinion is framed within the religious structure, it's not outside of religion. When the distortions of perspective, the disingenuous exaggerations, and the bogus histrionics are all dependent on a religious tradition, the religious assertion and related history are valid, relevant, and in some cases even important factors.

Once again, given that you had set the mood at post number 2 and the persons involved would jump into any fray of "kick the theist", their neutrality can be contested

And once again, you shouldn't complain because nobody can read your mind.

without Dobson's name on it, the thread probably would have progressed quite differently

See note above.

Does that mean we have finished excessively using the word "dobson"?

Well, I'm pretty much done trying to take you seriously in this discussion."

I'm not sure
in many places in the world, however, from latin america to asia, the word "mother" is a title of respect
(even to call an eight year old girl the title of "little mother" is also respectful)
needless to say, such activity in some parts of the west would constitute offense of even legal action.

You're aware, are you not, that "li'l mama" is a term used by some men while sexually harassing women?

I know, I know, it's women's faults that men make the phrase into sleazy harassment. If the women would just be flattered, kick back, and let the men do their manly business, the world would be a much better place, right?

 

[lightgigantic]

Tiassa

and let me guess - those changes were not engineered by persons who advocated ideologies to challenge existing ones?
”
I think it's funny how you use words like "engineering". You're giving the feminists a lot of credit. And it's really funny that you're worried about "engineering" while pushing religious propaganda.

it's really funny when you talk of your ideology and how it is not engineered

“
if we placed your contribution to antagonism on one side of the scales and measured it against the OP I think you would come out as the heavy weight champion
”
Wow.



Talk to me about that when I have an international ministry and have been experimenting with social engineering for a few decades.

once again, in your ecstasy to plug your favorite voodoo doll you missed a few issues

“
because you seem to have unresolved conflict issues on the subject
”
That almost made sense.

considering it sticks out a mile, its not clear how you missed it

“
so you want to argue that the social impact of motherhood is a non-issue?
”
See, now you're not even trying.

and you are?

“
the degradation of civilization progresses at the rate of successive generations of poorly equipped offspring
”
Ah.

And the connection between poorly equipped offspring and the "terror of feminization"?

gee - I guess you have to examine where the notion of motherhood fits in such an outlook

“
and no, first world consumerism is not a shining example of values
”
See, there's something we could talk about if you weren't so hung up on hating women.

I don't know
you seem to be doing a good job of hating certain classes of women and hating those who don't share your hatred

“
I am saying that women suffer in mutual relationships with corrupted notions of obligation and that they also suffer in the role of single mothers (with or without the notions of obligation) - at least in comparison to a mutual relationship with properly established notions of obligation
(putting aside issues of availability, do you think most mothers would prefer to be involved in supportive relationships with the father of their children or go through the ecstasy of divorce/single parenting?)
”
Maybe I should have split that one because your latter parenthetic note is its own question. As to the first part, there are two important points you've overlooked. First, women are humans, and humans suffer.
It's part of what makes us human.

still we see that some humans are more prone to suffering than others. Why?

Secondly, properly established notions of obligation are established between the participants in such a relationship. To prescribe them according to abstract principles ignores the question of "What do I want for/from this person?" in favor of, "Do I really want to be this person's ______?"

you seem to forget that to be human means that we are not independant - IOW if I say I don't want to be this person's ______, it just means we will be the _______ of someone/something else.

As to your parenthetic note, that has as much to do with the fathers as the mothers, and the problems you fear are more densely distributed closer to certain traditions that include religious faith and attendant social obligations.

and what are the inherently religious qualities of this statement?

(putting aside issues of availability, do you think most mothers would prefer to be involved in supportive relationships with the father of their children or go through the ecstasy of divorce/single parenting?)


It pays to listen to what people say rather than just trying to find the quickest means to direct a faith-hating argument to the world at large

“
given the ever increasing statistical likelihood of divorce and delinquency of children, it appears that a few things are missing from such attempts of family planning
”
It's a cute cartoon, Lightgigantic, but further suggests your lack of sincerity.

another issue goes overhead unaddressed ...

“
[BTW (just to save you from another hatred-of christian-inspired-sermon-on-the-mount) teaching values is a complex issue - ie you cannot establish "respect" by flooding the world with "hate" - values are taught by idealized conduct
”
So ... why are you calling for a return to disrespectful standards of old? Make it easier for you to talk to women?

There is an ethical principle of philosophical discussion that if you want to defeat an argument you have to examine the strongest version of it - judging a genre by its worst stereotype is nothing more than ankle biting

“
Straight away I guess it might be asked what relevance any talk of idealized conduct might have in our gritty, down-to-earth world, where “cool” means being shallow, sullen, self-obsessed, sexually absorbed, emotionally numb, relentlessly materialistic and contemptuous of authority?

..... well there we have our idealized conduct
(gulp)
”
So the solution to the effects of everyone's behavior is to put women back in their place?

no
but if you think that women (or anyone for that matter) are somehow above issues of obligation, there are no solutions in sight

“
and lo and behold, telling others what they can and can't do is also what you are about - does that make us equal?
”
I never understood that stupid argument from conservatives: Oh, boo-hoo, I won't "let" you hate and discriminate? Give me a freakin' break.

but you are also hating and discriminating in equal quantities
you are also putting certain people in certain places in the social picture
what's the difference?

“
Once again, if you think matriarchy can exist without defined gender roles, its simply more ideology (or alternatively bitter grapes from the whole shot-to-bits social scene of the west)
IOW it seems you are just plugging away with rhetoric as a substitute for the experience and knowledge of how woman can and do control their husbands
.... at the very least, the inadequacies of experience of 2nd wave feminism (which is what you appear to embody) is what paved the way for 3rd wave feminism
”
When do we get to tenth-degree black belt feminism?

when the rhetoric no longer cuts the mustard of experience - how else?

“
so you want to argue that feminism in no way shaped the image of masculinity in society?
”
Why would I argue that?

beats me, that's why I'm asking

“

so you want to argue that feminism in no way shaped the image of masculinity in society?
”
Casting feminism as a manipulative, mythical super-villain is just one of those stupid exercises in diversion.

Why are you so afraid of women?

you have declared certain values as villainous simply because they shape an image of women
I find this absurd since you are also shaping an image of women, and given the holistic structure of society, that shapes everyone.
It's not so much an issue of being afraid of women but being tired of people who can't see the general principles their arguments are resting on

“
what do they call attacking the person instead of the argument in discussion again?
”
Fine. You dragged out misogynistic Christian propaganda as your topic starter.

Better?

rather more of the same

In this case, however, the person is an unreliable propaganda artist, so his credentials are reasonably in doubt.

Quit whining.

pots and kettles

“
what do they call attacking the person instead of the argument in discussion again?
”
Why are you so upset that nobody read your mind?

it's not so much the mind reading issue
it's the post reading issue ....

“
I should have just axed the authors name
”
Wouldn't have helped much.

(A) The message is repugnant, and would have drawn all manner of criticism, anyway.
(B) Enter the first sentence "quoted" into Google, and the essay can be identified as Dobson's.
(C) Posted as anonymous and then identified as Dobson, the article would have probably met the Cesspool immediately.

lol
:bravo:

“
even I had posted a statement by Dobson about the price of oranges you would probably still paint the forum in antagonism
”
Nope. I would have redirected it to Religion or Economics. Or the Cesspool. Depends on what he was doing with the oranges.

only after posting a ten page spiel of hatred

“
I would have more respect for you if you would take such topics to the religion thread - now we wouldn't want to start talking off topic and get the post redirected would we. little miss moderator?
”
I would have more respect for you if you weren't a two-bit, disingenuous propaganda hack.

charmed

If you have to hide behind forum delineation in order to avoid the credibility problem that comes with using doctrinal selfishness to decry selfishness, you're not being honest.

the fact that you haven't expressed any initiative to start a thread in the appropriate arena of discussion indicates your level of sincerity

“
"try" is the operative word
”
And it would be the least you could do.

ladies before gentlemen

“
its not clear how issues of gender play a prominent role in divorce settlements?
”
Nope. If you see a correlation, that might come from the fact that the participants in those settlements were positioned within the structure according to older sex-role constrictions.

given the dynamic changes in divorce settlements over the past 50 years, it seems you are just on another rhetorical rampage

“
I don't have issues with being equal in front of the law - I am just trying to bring you to the point that such a notion is metaphysical - if you could understand that then perhaps you could see the problems of labeling "equal rights" as synonymous with it
”
I think you're splitting the hair. And that does make sense, as long as "equality" is subordinate to sex-role prejudice.

you are not making sense (again)

“
how about indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher?
”
La Pieta Maggie?

notice how I can reference women from the real world and you can only reference rhetorical devices?

“
you want to argue that with or without a dysfunctional family atmosphere, children develop in the same fashion?
”
You may be applying a really broad and oversensitive definition of "dysfunctional".

without bothering to deal with such devices of civility like clarification, I guess you will never know (but hey, that doesn't mean you have to ease up on anything)

“
to those highly steeped in eurocentricity, anything outside it is mythical
”
Should we pretend that those dedicated to phallocentrism are somehow grounded in reality?

if you want - but your still playing with your eurocentricity

“
only because a new ideology came on the scene to suggest otherwise - like the TV documentary broadcast in the OP
”
And there we see the heart of the argument. Let's look at that as a proposition and response, because it's such an important point:

... social systems of mutual obligation at least in this cultural lineage, haven't been equal for a long time.

only because a new ideology came on the scene to suggest otherwise - like the TV documentary broadcast in the OP

Thank you for making the point.

it does however address certain issues around your use of your favorite wild card, the word "equality"

“
if women can come to the position of power in a way that 2nd wave feminism cannot dream of, its obvious that you have miscalculated some thing in your equation of gain
”
Interesting. But a non-sequitur.

maybe you would also feel better by offering a few rhetorical images (while women with actual authority get down to the real business)

“
and some people can ride a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling and some people cannot ride even a tricycle
still, we see that a general pattern tends to emerge
”
The simplicity of your analogy is telling. Neither family nor social dynamics are as simplistic as the expectations underlying your argument.

so family stability between mothers and fathers are clear contributers to dysfunctional families?

“
agreed
but as a further point, the solution to this problem lies in the role of obligation between the genders being re-established (through the medium of respect) and not high tailing out further into the cosmos of selfishness
”
You're right. The way to stop drowning is to simply drown.

interesting that you would rather kill yourself than be respectful

“
once again we are back at your wild card of "equality" which can mean anything from equal rights (rights to what exactly?) to equal before the law
”
If your definitions were stable and grounded in something resembling reality, equality wouldn't seem such a wild-card.

or alternatively you could have offered a definition of equality that isn't metaphysical to get yourself on the platform of coherent discussion (but hey, it's easier just to paint the forum in ad homs ... particularly if you're a mod, eh?)

“
yes, technically its impossible for a single parent to get divorced (without forming a second relationship), but given the elasticity of contemporary law perhaps such an absurdity could be accommodated in the future
”
Um ... whatever you say?

you are not trying to hide behind the stereotype of being a dumb woman again are you?

“
more confused than ever
”
Well, fit those people neatly into your gender scheme.

Have at it.

if they approach larger percentages, maybe there will be a need

“
it certainly was glaringly conspicuous that men who have sex change operations to become lesbians were completely neglected by the survey
”
Maybe none answered? How can you tell? Give us your analysis, please.

See, when you post stupid crap like that, we recognize that you're not being sincere.

I guess its just that then - an incomplete survey

“
perhaps in the 70's radical concepts of sexuality were heralded as the panacea for all gender issues (it was trendy to have a partner that was bisexual)

.... , needless to say, any which way you hang it, people are still feeling horrible about themselves (or alternatively, through the filter of selfishness it becomes "deny everything, blame everyone, be bitter")
”
Well, feeling horribly about oneself is an important aspect of Abramic cultures.

if thats the case, it seems the same baton is being wielded by your suggested alternative paradigm

“
you don't have to be a PhD in sociology to understand that the old ones become the dead ones and the young ones become the old ones
”
And?

unhappy children have a greater opportunity to grow up to be unhappy adults

“
unfortunately, you are yet to offer any tenable solution - unless you want to argue that the establishment of single parent families has removed the burden of social necessity
”
You don't get it yet, do you? There is no magic pill.

instead rhetorical waste of spaces like yourself just sit on your laurels and slag off at everyone

We're humans. Figuring out this society thing is a lot more complicated than pretending that assigned sex and gender roles will fix what assigned sex and gender roles have broken.

its not like you can hang gender issues out the back until they dry - they are a rampant and essential aspect of society

“
yep
flip that wild card any which way
”
Well, if you weren't so insincere about your argument, you might be able to understand such concepts.

and hedging around the challenge to define what the hell you are talking about is heroic?

“
once again - equality has a metaphysical status - if you think it can be achieved without respect, its just some lop-sided ideology speaking through you (there's no social evidence to say the least)
”
What an interesting comment. It's so irrelevant I wonder why you include it.

never mind - just use "equality" in any whimsical way you want

“
keeping cozy by burning all those strawmen?
”
Your argument looks like what the cows leave, and it smells like what the cows leave. Don't try to tell me it's a freakin' cookie.

Burn baby burn

“
given that most people who appear for conviction in courts are likely to have performed crimes that bring to bear issues of motherhood or fatherhood (not too many people appear in court charged with shooting 2 dozen people), its not clear why you think it did or should operate otherwise
”
It's a good thing I've stopped taking you seriously, else I might wonder what you're trying to say. ("Did Timmy fall down a well?")

ever wondered why there are things like "high courts" and "common law" and why they have marked distinct workloads?

“
to be inhumane is certainly possible for us
”
Okay. Right. And?

pave the way for us

“
lol - now would be a good time to establish your ontological status
”
Yawn.

figures

“
ahem - other people who arrived after you set the religious band wagon in motion (and other people who are not heralded as being neutrally agnostic either)
”
Okay ... let's see ... Maybe if you had a specific context in mind you should have posted that at the outset, not after throwing a hissy fit.

i think you have expanded more saliva than me

“
and what picture do you think a mod on their forum driving home an issue that can only be addressed by going off topic while simultaneously threatening to post it in the cesspool creates?
”
Yeah, well, if people taking issue with the topic post is your definition of "off-topic", there's nothing I can do to help you.

except throw it in the cesspool, eh?
“

You should stop and consider what you are sold out to - it could save you from jumping the gun on assuming what others are sold out to
”
Um ... oh! Thbpbpbpbpbpt!

Seriously, dude ... you insist that the only discussion we have must define the world in Dobson's terms, and you get upset that people would invoke any other perspective of the world.

Quit whining.

its not so much your world view that is irritating, but your reluctance to define key elements of it - like "equality" for instance

“
Once again, I wasn't aware how thoroughly I would have to defend the ramparts
”
Actually, you went to great efforts to create this debacle.

not as much as you - as indicated by your second post (what to speak of the subsequent ones)

“
well, not a religious discussion, to say the least
”
Discussing ethics and morals without considering their components is a bit like discussing recipes without considering food.

erm - there are no inherent religious aspects in the OP
the only one's are those introduced by you by examining the background of the author

“
(if a biologist can have an opinion about society that can be addressed outside of discussions of biology, why can't religious persons have an opinion about society that cannot be addressed outside of religion?)
”
When the opinion is framed within the religious structure,

that's the point - the OP isn't

“
Once again, given that you had set the mood at post number 2 and the persons involved would jump into any fray of "kick the theist", their neutrality can be contested
”
And once again, you shouldn't complain because nobody can read your mind.

but its your mind that set the theme

“
Does that mean we have finished excessively using the word "dobson"?
”
Well, I'm pretty much done trying to take you seriously in this discussion."

funny
I wasn't aware where you began to

“
I'm not sure
in many places in the world, however, from latin america to asia, the word "mother" is a title of respect
(even to call an eight year old girl the title of "little mother" is also respectful)
needless to say, such activity in some parts of the west would constitute offense of even legal action.
”
You're aware, are you not, that "li'l mama" is a term used by some men while sexually harassing women?

just see where motherhood lies in eurocentric values

I know, I know, it's women's faults that men make the phrase into sleazy harassment. If the women would just be flattered, kick back, and let the men do their manly business, the world would be a much better place, right?

no
but if you think that the solution lies in whitewashing all issues of gender you will simply create more problems than you will solve

 

[Tiassa]

I wasn't aware where you began to

I tried at least twice, but apparently I offended you by doubting the credibility of Saint Dobson.

except throw it in the cesspool, eh?

I just didn't think that would be helpful to you.

Obviously, I was wrong.

 

[superluminal]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and to say that change is good is to say the future is more preferable than the past
”
Quite true - and note how I didn't say it - but you seem to have assumed I did, merely by arguing against your implication.
Change is change. Whether it is "good" or "bad" is subjective.

and that issue is precisely what is being discussed here
welcome

“
the solution to such conflicting suggestions however lies in an analysis of the present
”
If and of itself? That won't get you far.

it kind of puts an analysis of the past or an anticipation for the future in perspective

“
strange since you haven't even ventured how your general premise operates on a different principle to mine ....
”
That is because you have made an erroneous assumption of what my general premise might be.

and you are still not venturing what it is ...
:scratchin:

“
atheists that have a sense of gender simply aren't practicing strictly enough?
”
Having a sense of gender is very different to being told what each gender has to do and the roles they have to fill.

if there are no distinct gender roles its not clear how there can exist a sense of gender (since the general populace are not in the habit of having a world view coloured by such erotic terms as "chromosomes")

“
fortunately people involved in family support and human services have a different outlook
”
And your evidence for this claim? Or is this just another of your confidence statements?

I would have thought that the develop of many social initiatives to address issues like "single mothers" "divorced fathers", etc that have sprung up on the social welfare scene with the increase in dysfunctional family situations would have made it self evident ....

I would suggest that a large portion of gender issues results from a lack of respect between people with regard their rights to choose - with those like you on one side expecting old-fashioned gender roles to be carried out, while on the other side there are those who feel that we should be respected for whatever role we wish to have for ourselves, albeit one that fits within society as a whole, and societies aims.

so I guess that leaves us with two choices
one is to adopt the philosophy of "if it feels good do it" and let gov't agencies/social welfare societies flounder as they try and bridge the social chaos and the other is to reinstall the family unit to a dignified status - which do you think offers the optimal result?

“
correction - everyone should make informed decisions
”
No - everyone should make decisions. It would be preferable if they could make informed decisions, but it is everyones' right to make a decision whether they are well- or badly- informed on the matter.

thankfully people working in human services have a different outlook

“
I guess first you would have to establish what is meant by these words good and bad
”
I leave that to you - as it was you who first implied that the gender confusion is to be discouraged.

ok - do you think most people would prefer to grow up in a family situation that involved both their biological parents in a relationship that was mutually obligated or do you think they would prefer to grow up in a relationship that wasn't so mutual or resulted in things like divorce?

“
so far you seem to have suggested that it is a good thing if a person achieves a status in society that they have chosen - so IOW if a person chooses to sell heroin that is a good thing (regardless of whether they get caught by the police or not - hey it may make their life a bit less structured, but that is not necessarily a bad thing)
”
Strawman - and look - I bolded it for you so you couldn't miss it.

My comment was, as you quoted earlier in your response: "Everyone should be able to fit the role of their (and society's) choice" and again I have bolded the important part.
You, instead, have decided to take only an element - i.e. out of context - and thus reached a logically flawed conclusion.

the problem is that it is commonly observable that the choice of the individual and the context of the society contend with each other - to say that every one should be fit to make the choice is meaningless

“
if those differences are unique and if they don't do it, it begs the question who will
”
So you would force women to conceive even if they don't want to?

no
I said if they don't , who will
since I suggested that a reason they may not want to is because the notion of motherhood has become increasingly low class, I thought it would have been clear that I was advocating re-establishing motherhood to a more exalted position (which would involve looking at issues of the social fabric and also the dominant ideologies, both of men and women)

You do realise how old-fashioned, out-dated and morally disgusting you are coming across as with this statement?
You shock me, LG. Truly.

you do realize that it is a straw man of yours that you are disgusted with (at least in regards to this issue) and not me?

“
the issue becomes even more complex if there is dominant propaganda that playing a particular sport is low grade and not deserving of any respect, and that even if you are the world's number one at it, you are better off pursuing a career in haiku poetry or something
”
Strawman Utterly irrelevant as a response to the question I asked.
Please answer the question posed: "Does a person HAVE to play a sport merely because they are exceptionally good at it?"

If you could understand this comment you probably wouldn't jump to strawmen assassinations as above

“
Ever heard of the TFR (total fertility rate)?
”
Yes thanks. Total fertility rates are irrelevant as you were claiming the rates were insufficient to maintain the population. The stats given to you show otherwise. Now, are you willing to concede your claim, or are you now going to change your stance?

check out this and get back to me when you see which countries are predominantly lower than rates capable of maintaining their population

“
yes and thats the issue - will it change for better or worse
”
It will change. Better or worse is a subjective matter - and the less indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking (e.g. religious) the more easily you will see that the human society evolves - the workable societies in a given environment survive, the unworkable ones die out. When the environment changes, those societies that adapt will continue - those that don't could die out.

this is strange
you seem to conclude that supporting a social ideology is a waste of time since evolution is the irrevocable path of perfection - yet at the same time you are supporting the social ideology that religion should be extinguished. Get back to me when you make your mind up

“
erm - were you born of a mother and father?
”
Strawman. How does this answer the question I asked?
Yet again it is merely another flippant question seemingly posed in response to a question that you are unable to actually answer. Please stop doing it.
Now, answer the question, if you would be so kind... rephrased:
Where did you get the so-called "simple fact that progressive civilization requires distinctions of gender"?

I think you have to explain yourself - its not clear how civilization can progress without women and men acting in obligated roles (unless you are on some sci-fi trip that we will colonize mars with androgynous androids or something)

 

[Sarkus]

and that issue is precisely what is being discussed here

Not by you, it seems, who makes confidence statement of fact with no supporting evidence, and responds to questions with nothing other than a flippant question of your own.

it kind of puts an analysis of the past or an anticipation for the future in perspective

We call that "comparison".
Using words like "good" and "bad" require comparison.
And to use them with any degree of meaning one needs to establish what the norm is. Have you done that yet?

and you are still not venturing what it is ...

One doesn't need to venture anything merely to point out the errors of your arguments.

if there are no distinct gender roles its not clear how there can exist a sense of gender...

So you'd like to see all women chained to the kitchen. Fair enough. That's your position. It seems you are confusing biological ability with required practice.

I would have thought that the develop of many social initiatives to address issues like "single mothers" "divorced fathers", etc that have sprung up on the social welfare scene with the increase in dysfunctional family situations would have made it self evident ....

Clearly not - because you are only taking these things at the superficial level without understanding the true causes of such things... such as government's desire to win votes, the offering of free money for child-support, lack of education etc.

so I guess that leaves us with two choices

Logical fallacy: False Dilemma (but I'm guessing you knew that).
It's also a logical fallacy of Argument from Fear (i.e. positing one option as obviously correct due to fear of the alternative).

one is to adopt the philosophy of "if it feels good do it" and let gov't agencies/social welfare societies flounder as they try and bridge the social chaos and the other is to reinstall the family unit to a dignified status - which do you think offers the optimal result?

Drivel, LG. If you wish to cut it to only 2 options that you see fit, please feel free - but don't expect people to argue with you.
Clearly there are more alternatives.
Clearly your indoctrination is unable to see past these two extremes.
Clearly there is little point in discussing.
You are also confusing a "fix" with being the correct thing.

thankfully people working in human services have a different outlook

Again I'll ask you to provide evidence to support this confidence statement.
But most likely you'll come back with a flippant question as though it's an answer. Wearisome.

ok - do you think most people would prefer to grow up in a family situation that involved both their biological parents in a relationship that was mutually obligated or do you think they would prefer to grow up in a relationship that wasn't so mutual or resulted in things like divorce?

And this has what bearing on gender roles?
I'm confused.
Since when did we move from gender roles for men and women to arguments about benefits of a stable upbringing????

the problem is that it is commonly observable that the choice of the individual and the context of the society contend with each other - to say that every one should be fit to make the choice is meaningless

So instead you merely took my comments out of context, misrepresented them and came to the flawed conclusion you did. Fair enough. But please don't do it again.

no
I said if they don't , who will

I know you did - with the implication that "someone should". And with women having the only capacity to do so... I can see you with the gun to the poor woman's head already, LG. Shame on you!

since I suggested that a reason they may not want to is because the notion of motherhood has become increasingly low class, I thought it would have been clear that I was advocating re-establishing motherhood to a more exalted position (which would involve looking at issues of the social fabric and also the dominant ideologies, both of men and women)

But you are still looking at it entirely from the wrong viewpoint...
There is currently NO NEED FOR WOMEN TO CONCEIVE. The human population is not in fear of extinction from infertility.
Populations are doing absolutely fine on their own at present - and even a drop in birthrates might help.
If there is NO NEED - then WHY encourage them to through raising the status of this or that? Unless, of course, you see it as their duty from the outset.

you do realize that it is a straw man of yours that you are disgusted with (at least in regards to this issue) and not me?

Not at all - the implication was clear in your statement - unless you're admitting to another logical fallacy within that statement?.

If you could understand this comment you probably wouldn't jump to strawmen assassinations as above

To avoid me kicking over your strawmen, LG, I would suggest you stop putting them up.
This could be done either by arguing against the point made or, from your comment above, more clearly stating your point rather than seemingly trying to dance round the issue.

check out this and get back to me when you see which countries are predominantly lower than rates capable of maintaining their population

TFR is a long-term view - with ACTUAL population rates (birth rate less death rate) determining whether a population grows or not.
The TFR is a guide to replacement - not population growth.
i.e. due to the lower death-rate over time, a far lower TFR is required to maintain or grow the population.
e.g. If no-one dies then a TFR of just over 0 will suffice in growing the population.
So to claim a TFR of 2 is required to maintain the population is misleading, and erroneous when used without caveats.
Understand?

this is strange
you seem to conclude that supporting a social ideology is a waste of time since evolution is the irrevocable path of perfection

Strawman - where have I ever stated that????

- yet at the same time you are supporting the social ideology that religion should be extinguished.

Strawman - where have I ever stated that????

Get back to me when you make your mind up

Get back to me when you stop making up fallacious arguments, and making stuff up about what I have said.

If you bother to actually read what was written... ah, well, that would be too much for you, I guess (although I might be wrong).

I think you have to explain yourself - its not clear how civilization can progress without women and men acting in obligated roles (unless you are on some sci-fi trip that we will colonize mars with androgynous androids or something)

Why should everything be "obligated"? You're holding that gun to the woman's head again, LG.
There are sufficient people of both genders who happily fulfill all the roles required in society WITHOUT obligation.
How many women do you know who felt obligated to have children?
My mother didn't. She wanted children.
All my friends with children didn't - they wanted children.
Even those who had children by accident didn't feel obligated.

So where on earth do you get the notion that gender roles need to be "obligated"? I am totally baffled and confused by your stance.

 

[HumanBeast]

I could be seen as a rabid feminist in some ways, but I've abandoned the movement when I read some non liberal literature on gender indentity and role. Much of it came from masculism, some from nonbinaries, and antifeminism.

I disagree with feminism on these points:

A. Abortion
B. Divorce settlements
C. Want to have many babies
D. Feminine apperance


I still have a distaste for chivalry, though. :-D

 

[visceral_instinct]

Found this today while cleaning up my hard drive



Why not? Because a society can be no stronger than the vitality of its
families, and its families are a function of the way the sexes relate to
each other. Maleness and femaleness are not merely social niceties that have
evolved through time. While customs vary from one culture to another, the
linkage between the sexes is a function of powerful forces deep within the
human spirit. That attraction must not be tampered with by social engineers
with an agenda of their own.

Wow, I better never have a family. My kids will grow up badly damaged with no self esteem, because I do all my own heavy lifting and clean my nails with a switchblade.

Seriously, that sounds like just ideology dressed up as science.