Gender Fluidity should be an Adult topic

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They may not be overtly explicit in their intent, but if it looks like the actions they take are suppressing my masculinity, they hate masculinity at least from my pov. 

Can you give me an example?

[Karmadhi]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not so hard.

David Deida's books explain the masculine/feminine dynamic very well. You can treat the topic as a social science and a kind of applied psychology. Similar to sex-ed.

It's not hard to turn masculine and feminine into a course. It's easier to understand than algebra. And it doesn't take 10 years of classes to get it.

Good luck getting the liberal green people to accept these courses.

I live in a liberal green city and just saying that "men tend to prefer more technical fields like engineering" will get you labeled as a sexist and patriarchal.

It happened to me countless, countless times until I gave up.

 I have read "Way of the Superior Man". it is amaizing book.

But it is too radical to be taught to a green audience.

Such book would work way better to a blue or orange audience.

Most green people tend to demonize gender differences to the point where they downright ignore they even exist.

 

Edited April 23 by Karmadhi

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, Alexop said:

Can you give me an example?

It's hard to to articulate since the masculine repression is, well, it's repressed. It will not find expression unlike toxic masculinity.

One striking example is in how office spaces today has become sterilized and contrived environment due to policing hy the HR departments on how men should behave in office spaces. Even complements to women are dangerous. And you cannot directly talk to women or be too confrontational. You have to be sensitive all the time. On the surface all this looks good, but if forces men to walk on egg shells all the time. Or you have to be in a different mode when women are here.

A new grad complained on social media about how corporations were discriminating him for getting women placed and they revoked his offer letter. He was devastated. It's like you can't say anything that mildly offends the feminist hive mind. They say men should open up about their struggles and when they do they are met with this treatment.

This walking on egg shells drives people mad. But they all repress it internally and needs time with the boys to decompress from this madness. It's also a reason why I tried extra hard to not work in office jobs. It will drive me crazy.

42 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Good luck getting the liberal green people to accept these courses.

I live in a liberal green city and just saying that "men tend to prefer more technical fields like engineering" will get you labeled as a sexist and patriarchal.

It happened to me countless, countless times until I gave up.

 I have read "Way of the Superior Man". it is amaizing book.

But it is too radical to be taught to a green audience.

Such book would work way better to a blue or orange audience.

Most green people tend to demonize gender differences to the point where they downright ignore they even exist.

 

You have lots of internalized misogyny. jk.

Edited April 23 by Bobby_2021

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Good luck getting the liberal green people to accept these courses.

I live in a liberal green city and just saying that "men tend to prefer more technical fields like engineering" will get you labeled as a sexist and patriarchal.

It happened to me countless, countless times until I gave up.

 I have read "Way of the Superior Man". it is amaizing book.

But it is too radical to be taught to a green audience.

Such book would work way better to a blue or orange audience.

Most green people tend to demonize gender differences to the point where they downright ignore they even exist.

Don't over-generalize. Most Green people can appreciate the value of masculinity and femininity without making them some rigid, exclusive, traditional roles.

If you consume too much online politics then you will get a skewed picture of this situation. Politics and culture wars on social media are not an accurate representation of how people feel about this issue.

Edited April 23 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't over-generalize. Most Green people can appreciate the value of masculinity anf femininity without making them some rigid, exclusive, traditional roles.

That's true. But there are insane 1% of people on the either extremes. 

These loud 2% is enough to overthrow the sane majority. 2%, being a conservative estimate.

No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

Good luck getting the liberal green people to accept these courses.

I live in a liberal green city and just saying that "men tend to prefer more technical fields like engineering" will get you labeled as a sexist and patriarchal.

It happened to me countless, countless times until I gave up.

 I have read "Way of the Superior Man". it is amaizing book.

But it is too radical to be taught to a green audience.

Such book would work way better to a blue or orange audience.

Most green people tend to demonize gender differences to the point where they downright ignore they even exist.

 

I won't even call those people green. They are just a wicked varriant of blue. I see not difference between their behavior and a blue pope father who silences his daughter at the dinner table because she dared to favor for abortion or divorce. Green is not just another flavor of blue, it integrates the freedom of speech from orange. These feminazis are not green, and if the office example that @Bobby_2021  brought up is really so radical, then I feel sorry for men working in such toxic environments. All the priviledged spoiled girls are now political activists and thought police.

Honestly I did not experience this kind of toxic femininity outside social media, but I see them how they hoard in comment sections and use the power in numbers to overpower the good arguments of the conservatives. All they have is power in numbers and empowering the victim. They can't love the opressor which is tragic, because nobody will change his/her mind through opression. 

 

And ultimately the karma will bite them in the ass. As I see in Sweden's politics now with the maaasive popularity increase of the conservative party. People are not idiots, when instead of doing good politics you just try to not be racist, then people will vote those who do politics instead.

Edited April 23 by Alexop

[Alexop]

52 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

Every sane swede or norvegian to whom I explained this agreed. As you said, it is the loud minority who distorts our perception. They all gather on social media and create the perception that there are a lot of them, but the sane majority of people don't waste their time arguing on facebook so it's just them there.

Edited April 23 by Alexop

[Girzo]

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's true. But there are insane 1% of people on the either extremes. 

These loud 2% is enough to overthrow the sane majority. 2%, being a conservative estimate.

No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

Your numbers are straight out of ass. As a sociologist I have to oppose such statements.

About your last statement. Clearly, you have not read much literature or even any literature on the topic and just share your imaginations about what is in the books and not what actually is in there. Start with some Judith Butler or something.

[Alexop]

45 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Start with some Judith Butler or something.

What do Judith Butler say about masculinity and femininity? Without the understanding of this dance of energies coupled with our biology and hormone dynamics is just a work not done. Maybe I picked to listen a bad book of hers but it was the most boring shit I ever listened to. 

 

Edited April 23 by Alexop

[Girzo]

@Alexop If you read her then you should be aware of the distinction between sex and gender. On average, being of certain sex gives you advanteges in certain career like engineering. No-one disputes it. The same goes for an acquired cultural gender.

"Men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses."

If you think that this exact sentence wouldn't be published in a book, that's only if it were read in strawmanning-manner as completely lacking nuance, thus factually wrong. Nuance being it's only true on average, there's many women who excel in engineering roles. Another nuance would be what Bobby thinks about proportions of this tendency, true proportions can be scientifically found out more or less. Another is the inclusion of factors why is it so, not only sex but also the whole fucking society. No wonder less women are crane operators when all the safety equipment, etc is desgined male-sized. The same goes for rifles in the military, etc. Nuance and context, then you can say it.

Edited April 23 by Girzo

[Yimpa]

I started feminizing HRT a week ago and I’d be happy to share the changes  and experiences I notice in the coming months and years 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's true. But there are insane 1% of people on the either extremes. 

These loud 2% is enough to overthrow the sane majority. 2%, being a conservative estimate.

No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

As I said from the start, it's a matter of political will. For sure such a class as I suggest would get politicized to hell by radicals from both sides today.

This is why we can't have nice things.

It's a shame because kids really need such a class. The politics on this issue is just noise.

Edited April 23 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

17 hours ago, Girzo said:

Your numbers are straight out of ass. As a sociologist I have to oppose such statements.

About your last statement. Clearly, you have not read much literature or even any literature on the topic and just share your imaginations about what is in the books and not what actually is in there. Start with some Judith Butler or something.

I am not saying that you couldn't publish a book citing gender differences. There are plenty out there.

The claim was that you cannot use those books to teach students in academia. That was the context of the discussion. 

------------

@Leo Gura

Those people are not overly political. These are normal parents of kids who are radicalised. There are plenty of such people in the general populace.

Let's just say even one woman exist who is so pissed off by the textbooks.

She will take it to the court:

"My lord this textbooks are so patriarchal and misogynistic

Women can be engineers as men or better, if not for the hundreds of millions of years of oppression".

Court makes observation:

"This woman sad. Make woman happy. Pass law. Ban textbook."

Courts can be used by anyone to overthrow popular stuff with or without political will.

Take abortion for example. Most people want access to abortion. But courts can simply take it out given that there are a motivated small group of people who can make it happen.

Which is why the structure of the society itself makes it impossible. It is meant to appease crazy people. Not for consciousness or Truth.

[Bobby_2021]

16 hours ago, Girzo said:

If you think that this exact sentence wouldn't be published in a book, that's only if it were read in strawmanning-manner as completely lacking nuance, thus factually wrong. Nuance being it's only true on average, there's many women who excel in engineering roles. Another nuance would be what Bobby thinks about proportions of this tendency, true proportions can be scientifically found out more or less. Another is the inclusion of factors why is it so, not only sex but also the whole fucking society. No wonder less women are crane operators when all the safety equipment, etc is desgined male-sized. The same goes for rifles in the military, etc. Nuance and context, then you can say it.

You can have even more nuance.

The fact that we even have women excel in engineering roles is not because women love engineering, but because of a contrived push from society to make more women engineers and mathematicians against their will.

Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring.

But women have many incentives to become engineers and advantages offered to them by society. And still there aren't enough women engineers. 

Which is why India and the middleast east has more women in stem as opposed to US or Scandinavian countries. Because we force women to take up engineering against their will for obvious reasons.

Given enough freedom, even lower of women will choose engineering because of their own genetics and their interests.

It's not like women were desperate to be crane operators only to be disheartened by seats being oversized and have to return home. Women are not interested in operating cranes in huge numbers. If they were, we would be building them to fit their size. 

It would also mean an economic incentive since women would be paid less, according to their own words. 

[Girzo]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am not saying that you couldn't publish a book citing gender differences. There are plenty out there.

The claim was that you cannot use those books to teach students in academia. That was the context of the discussion. 

This is such bullshit man, go study any social science at an uni, and then tell us how it is, not before doing that. 

[Girzo]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Given enough freedom, even lower of women will choose engineering because of their own genetics and their interests.

No no no man, you don't have proof for all that, now you are doing not more nuance, but more bias.

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that. You don't know causation and many other things. It's safe to always just share the insight of HOW you see things to be and not WHY they are this way. Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

"Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring."

Obviously they do. If you are a man then you get social acceptance of your choice and family support, etc. Lots of encouragement.

My only thing I want you to take with you after this conversation. Get comfortable with not-knowing and don't assume you know why society looks a certain way, stay grounded with your observations. Some Peter Ralston would do you good and many other people at these forums.

 

[Nemra]

@Girzo

In my opinion, what you know about some science can be incorrect as hell, but you can still be unbiased. If someone's too biased and studies what you say, they'll make their biases (be they opposite or not) stronger, regardless of whether the science is correct or not. That's what I have observed. It's interesting

Edited April 24 by Nemra

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

No no no man, you don't have proof for all that, now you are doing not more nuance, but more bias.

You not having seen the proof is not proof of it not existing. Go research on the "Gender Equality Paradox".

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that.

Then what is the source of those differences?

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Having an advanced paper to support your claims does not mean what you are saying is true. If that was the case, all the experts should be agreeing with each other.

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Obviously they do. If you are a man then you get social acceptance of your choice and family support, etc. Lots of encouragement.

Women get plenty of social acceptance for being engineers as well. There is a strong push to include more women in stem from the powerful institutions, spending millions of dollars into diversity hiring etc..which men do not have. I was talking about that difference.

Heck, the supposed more patriarchal countries have more women in stem than the advanced liberal countries. You do not address any of this and say there is not any proof.

The acceptance that men get is a consequence of the money he makes from engineering roles, being of higher pay, not because he choose engineering per say. If women makes that much money in nursing, she would as much acceptance.

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Get comfortable with not-knowing and don't assume you know why society looks a certain way, stay grounded with your observations.

I do know. You are the one who does not know to be frank.

And you also assume that not knowing is somehow gives validity to the claim that all gender differences are merely a social construction, which is the real bullshit.

Also I would like to read on your position? Are you claiming that none of us know? or do you have proof to substantiate your position rather than glossing over possibilities?

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

Gender is a social construction. I have my own definition of gender and sex, which is a solid definition.

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want. Such a world view is not even internally coherent, and ambiguous. I do not have ambiguity in my definitions. Which is what a definition is supposed to be.

I want clarity not mental gymnastics.

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Girzo

What you know about some science can be incorrect as hell, but you can still be unbiased, imo. If someone's too biased and studies what you say, they'll make their biases stronger. It's interesting.

I heard that 50% of those papers in academia could not even be replicated. It is just a boatload of crap. You can also derail a conversation by bringing in unnecessary complexities and technicalities and make the discourse go nowhere.

Edited April 24 by Bobby_2021

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want.

Isn't this ambiguous?