You wont find a manhole in Berkeley anymore

VG

Sorry again this just makes it obvious once more that you don’t read the posts

 

In this particular thread, its the rest of you pissing around, 6 didnt say most of the stuff you are claiming he did

The dude said homosexuality was naturally occuring

 

He obviously said more. If he said just that there would be no discussion or argument.
He tried to make a point with that. This is what is expanded on.

Are you being faceteous, Jeffrey?

 

VG

FOR fuck sake man - read the posts

I mean what are we claiming 6 did that he didn’t do?

OK LOL, for what seems the hundredth time no one has accused 6 of been homophobic only of using a type of argument (what Okie has calls the ‘natural law’ argument) that has also been used by homophobes. He seemed to be implying that by ‘nature’ women take (or should take) the ‘subservient’ role while men take the leadership one.

 

Yes, I think that was also my point. Cultural evolution can counteract biological evolution.

 

Just say read the posts everytime someone disagrees with you isnt an argument

Not calling him homophobic/ saying he is using argument used by homophobes is a lame distinction. Especially when he never used such arguments. You only used that word in the first place to make him sound like the bad guy over a point you disagreed with

"Seemed to be implying" isnt a fact, doesnt even describe what he said, just your interpretation of it, which seems to be based on previous threads and a personal grudge.

That is; its you, its not anyone having trouble reading the text in these posts. No one is going to buy nonsense like "oh, im not calling him a homophobe, I just think he thinks like one"

 

VG

But if 6 thought like a homophobe wouldn’t he be homophobic - but I’m not saying he thinks like a homophobe - I’m saying he is using a type of argument (what Okie has called the ‘natural law’ argument) that has been also used by homophobes and others – it implies that certain attitudes or positions or roles are dictated by ‘natural law’ – I gave other examples beyond homosexuality, it was once argued that slavery and class division were ‘natural’ that it was natural for the 'superior' (class or race) to rule over the inferior (it underpins a lot of social Darwinist and neoliberal thinking)

Are you honestly saying you can’t see a distinction been those these things? That if people use a similar type of argument then they must think exactly the same?

Again I can only urge you to read the posts – and ask you what you think he was trying to say? What is your interpretation of his comments?

For example if someone believes that it is by nature to have a system where the men are leaders and the women raise the children.

 

Maybe this article on evolutionary psychology will clear it up.Gender Equality Baffles Evolutionary Psychologists I think Six is a fan of Jordan Peterson, the apostle of hierachies, whose ideas about gender are heavily shaped by evolutionary psychology--which has tended to emphasize the legacy of traits acquired in the Pleistocene. This article suggests that evolutionary adaptation to current conditions may be overriding such influences.

Evolutionary psychology does not contend that human nature is hardwired‖ by genes or determined exclusively by mainly by biology. "Evolutionary psychologists firmly reject both genetic determinism and environmental determinism and, instead, contend that both genes and environment must be considered in understanding the human mind (Rossano, Evolutionary Psychology, 2003, p. 28; Tooby and Cosmides ,1992, in In J. Barkow, L.Cosmides, andJ. Tooby (eds.) The adapted mind, p. 86) Several books on evolutionary psychology contain explicit warnings about committing the naturalistic fallacy (e.g., Bridgeman, 2003; Buss, 1999; Cartwright, 2000;Palmer andPalmer, 2002; Rossano, 2003). Six doesn't seem to have heeded these warnings.

 

i found this sentence very very funny because of the type of thread this is.
with a winding twisting back and forth where it is 100% certain that no-one will concede or probably even understand each other.
"maybe THIS will clear it up..."
: )
the wonderful optimism of it. just very funny, in a good way.

 

Look, when I say what Im about to say, not totally disregarding your argument, and I never actially said I agree with 6 on the natural law thing. Thankyou for adding to the duscussion, providing interesting sources in that post


But.......


Evolutionary Psychology, the whole thing is just too subjective. The article you first linked contains the paragraph:

"One of the most obvious was the division of labor according to gender. Amongst indigenous people, men hunted large game animals, for example, and women collected most of the vegetable food"

Especially with that part of human history when we moved from hunter gatherers to early farming. And plenty of evidence around the world to tell us both systems happened simultaneously. Well, they still do really

That move into early farming, hard to believe that wasnt moreso driven by the female half of the population, yes the men might have had to do the harder stuff, ploughing fields, clearing land, but the bulk of the work, planting, harvesting, preparing/storing food, later milling, would have been done by women

This century, either side of the argument, its still mostly men writing these papers, overemphasizing the importance of being able to speer a deer or club your neighbour over the head

Evolutionary psychology covers everything from social structures to adaptive brain functions. Talk on the evolutionary effects on brain functions goes out the window as soon as a female gets pregnant, marked differences in female brain functions, which are largely chemical within a single generation

And a lot of arguments that can be simply explained by the size differences between the sexes rather than genetics.

Most of the males didnt lead, most of them werent even the ones doing most of the hunting, and the ones that did ended up dead quicker

Natural selection or not, either side of the argument, its still mostly men mainsplaining their opinions giving to much subjective weight to the role of men

 

Thread is mostly old angry guys arguing with each other, in this case on the roles of women

Where are their female counterparts?

Living in the house they got in the divorce, helping babysit their grandkids, having a good old chit chat with a bunch of other ladies over brunch ( the 5 times as many friends they have)

 

VG is so sensitive.

 

I'd get involved but, there's just too much to read atm.

Sum it up for me. What is thread about? Cause I remember posting about sissyboys and now I just don't know what has happened.

 

VG

Oh so let me get this straight – you hadn’t read the posts but now you have you realise you don’t have an argument and don’t even agree with what 6 was saying?

Wouldn’t it be better in future to read the posts carefully first and then we wouldn’t have to waste all this time?

And what is your new argument it seems to be that men shouldn’t be allowed to talk about subjects that involve women, because that is ‘mansplaining’?

 

VG

What is your point? Are you suggesting women were the ones in control of the process?

I mean it seems to me that there is more evidence to indicate that the move to agriculture brought about inequality including slavery and hierarchies been established and the beginnings of patriarchal systems.

How Neolithic farming sowed the seeds of modern inequality 10,000 years ago

Can inequality be blamed on the Agricultural Revolution?

Inequality Existed Since the Stone Age

This became entrenched through laws, religions and custom remember that law from the bronze age that said “If a woman speaks out of turn, then her teeth will be smashed by a brick” and the second class status given to women in the old testament.

 

Dude what is wrong with you?

 

Yeah, I think your always aggressive self is a prime example of why we need more female perspectives on this.

Leadership is useless if you dont have the numbers to get things done.

Yes, the majority of the workload in early agriculture would have been done by women

Does that mean things were less equal than what occured previously - hunter gather system, where conditions were harsher, life expectancy lower. Highly unlikely

 

Okie

Its an interesting subject and one part of the piece reminded me of something I heard on a radio science programme some years ago (Sorry I can’t remember which is was so can’t cite).

Anyway the argument presented was that the idea that women, because of evolutionary traits were biologically ‘risk averse’ was incorrect and that it was a cultural imposition.

The contention was that historically since women were the producers of heirs they were kept away from harm by men (and to make sure they only produced his children) sometimes quite literally imprisoned but in other cases constrained by taboos, customs and laws.

One of these constrains that grow up was that women were naturally risk averse and so a women that took risks would be seen of as abnormal, so as to conform to societal norms women claimed to be risk averse.

But in societies where women had more freedom they could be just as ‘risk happy’ as men.

 

VG

So you didn’t read the post or articles AGAIN

Look when you actually know what’s been said get back to us.

I don’t want to spend pages explaining things to you because you didn’t know what the argument actually was.

*[edit]

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

 

You didnt read that article did you

Study was on modern day tribes in Congo and Phillipines, then somehow magically transcribed to early humans

You just googled something, headline sounded good, from The Guardian no less, then accuse me of not reading articles