8 ms·
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem. Also, if you're going to say things like "natural di
by badsock 9y ago
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem.
Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence.
This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indistinguishable from them.
- hasenj 9y agoYou have it backwards. If you think there are no natural difference between men and women you better bring a mountain of evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence. I did not make any outrageous claim. It would be incredibly surprising if men and women were identical in every aspect except for their reproductive body parts Just consider the difference in selection pressure that men and women face.
- badsock 9y agoI have no problem with the possibility that men and women are different. What's unjustified is, given the powerful effect of culture on behaviour, someone making offhand claims that they know what differences are natural. I read "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" as saying that what's "implicitly" (i.e. commonly) understood as to be the natural differences is correct. Because what has been "implicitly" understood has differed substantially across time and cultures, that's a highly suspect claim that requires a matching degree of evidence. Furthermore, just the long and loud history of people spouting off absolute bullshit about what women are and aren't is, by itself, enough to demand significant evidence for any positive statements of what's natural or not.
- coldtea 9y ago>Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence. Millenia of history is a kind of evidence. And the main answer back is "this history is the history of an oppression". Which doesn't even go to why would (all things being equal) one gender get to be the oppressor and the other always the oppressed within the same society, and with the same population numbers on each side (e.g. we're not talking about slaves captured via force here).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zepto 9y agoNatural differences are things like 'mean height', and the ability to get pregnant. It is quite reasonable that past societies divided labor based on suitability of physical capacities for different tasks. It wouldn't be reasonable to call this 'oppression' per se. However the structure of roles human societies has always been mediated by the level of technology. Gender divisions of labor, class and caste systems etc, have always shifted when the technological structure of production and warfare have changed as technology has developed. Reinforcing roles that were developed in a less advanced technological society but are not necessary in the present landscape is most certainly oppression, as is resisting thought that could lead to more freedom for groups you don't belong to.
- hasenj 9y agoThink about that history affected our biology (due to evolution). Consider the case with food. We now have an abundance of food rich with carbs and fats, but if we eat too much of them we get sick, because our bodies were designed with certain assumptions about environment. In this case, or natural environment. Wouldn't the same be applicable to our social environment? Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason.