'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you mean the ability to do tasks like maths and engineering or are you generalising all the way up to being innovative and moving the world forward as some posters are happy to conclude?

Sure I'll read all those on me tea break. Have you read them and could you tell us what they say?

Both.

Also, I'm not summarizing ten or so papers for you ya lazy bastard. Read them yourself like I did.:o

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was about 3-5% attributable to biological causes, last time I had to research it. The rest is attributed to a range or other factors which I'm grouping into 'socialisation'.

I'd need to see links because 5% seems very low or its defined in a way to make it seem low, there certainly is more than a 5% difference in what would be considered male and female interests and behaviours even if you take into account gendered culture.
You only have to look at something like crime to indicate that a male going off the tracks have very different consequences to females going off the tracks. Or at the other end there isn't just a 5% differential between men and women going into Engineering or Applied languages?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's odd alright but we spend a lot of time encouraging things like rough play in boys, and then spend more time managing behaviour like fighting in older boys and young men.

but again if you were to measure a group of boys 10% are going to be more feminine 20% are going be more masculine and there will be a large group in the middle jockeying for position or not, this competition if not directed will spill over into what is deemed to be socially unacceptable behaviour. think back to your own school, was it the smallest or "geekiest" kids that instigated the fighting or was is the stonger and bigger kids?
Rough play is natural for "a lot" of boys and I'd say is biologically driven, the way to harness it is through things like sports. This is where feminists mis-frame the issue because they ignore boyish behaviour.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So we do socialise boys to excel in work? It's a byproduct of keeping them away from drugs etc. but that's what we do as a culture. While we don't consciously put the same effort into socialising girls to excel in work. You weren't saying that when we were discussing this topic from the pay gap perspective. Back then you are saying it was just down to preference and women preferred the jobs they happen to pay less.

well that's how society was built, men are builders or destroyers because that is their nature. As such the message now is that anyone can do what they want right? the fact that they don't on average is down to male and female nature . More men want to be soldiers or hang out of 100mtr Electricity pylons fixing stuff and more women prefer people oriented professions

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That just sounds ridiculous to me but it's surely more along the lines of 'no running in the playground' for health and safety gone mad reasons. I wouldn't encourage it.

the slight downside of a trendy mixed school perhaps, other examples were soccer being banned for a while on breaks because it was "not inclusive". Ok so while I don't want schools to be Mad Max and the Thunderdome, schools should be fully on board that there is a "boyish" core when dealing with boys and that girls have their own group preferences. The criticism to feminists in the US where its worse is that girls are seen as the model and that boys don't meet this standard and thus suffer and to acknowledge that there is a male and female nature and the job of education is not to feminise boys because it wont work and will lead to frustration and bad behaviour down the line.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Tell me honestly if you think knitting is a gender specific activity outside of socialisation? Building clothing from raw materials is totally gender neutral apart from the social aspect.

A similar task such as building model military machines is a typically male behaviour and building clothes is typically female. The skills used are very similar and the difference in application is due to socialisation

I never knitted so I have no idea, Im sure men have made clothes through history but I would say that boys prefer things with moving parts. There have been tests done on presocialised infants , even various monkey species have been shown to have preferences for trucks with wheels and dollies based on sex. chimp patriarchy? :pac:
So I would say there is a genetic disposition for men to be more likely to build things. Maybe again on a scale of masculinity that the most masculine boys would hate to sit down in one spot and knit for 2 to 3 hours without moving , they would be stressed out by it but the same kid might also hate building model airplanes or would grow out of it very quickly.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with what I was saying. I was referring to the fact that you acknowledge social impact on men not choosing to go into teaching because, you said, it's not encouraged (socialised).

I don't remember this point but let me restate what my view is, I would say less men go into teaching now because there are higher paid alternatives. Go back 100 years and teachers had a higher education relative to society. Today its easier for them to float into IT/finance etc. As teaching also suits women its one of the professions they gravitate to and outcompete on entry requirements. A physics teacher 75 years ago is now your IT consultant today?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've only managed to get through the first 4 so far but there is NOTHING in those to suggest that sex differences are predominantly biological.

For example one of those papers notes there are behavioural differences between men and women and then analyses brain connectivity. It then PROPOSES that these brain connectivity differences may be responsible for behavioural differences.

Another is meta-analysis that concludes there are structural differences in male and female brains such as the larger brain size that contributes to neuropathic conditions. It says nothing about male/female behaviour.

Since you've read them all can you point me to at least one that says sex differences in behaviour are predominantly biological? It would save me going through them all.

Piss off.

I'm not going to hold your hand, especially with such a cùnt response. Read them yourself.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Piss off.

I'm not going to hold your hand, especially with such a cùnt response. Read them yourself.

escalatedfast.jpg

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol you haven't read any of them have you.

Why should I spent time writing up summaries of ten papers for you, especially given your posting history?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've only managed to get through the first 4 so far but there is NOTHING in those to suggest that sex differences are predominantly biological.

nobody should be making that case, the blank slate feminist is clearly wrong and someone that says everything is biology would be wrong too because humans are clearly capable of abstract and higher order thinking.

py2006 wrote: »

There is something very wrong with todays feminist influenced society when a simple act of kindness from a man towards a woman is derided and twisted into something more sinister like controlling/patriarchy or viewing women as stupid. Or their favourite new word, misogyny.

I think we're far beyond society merely being 'influenced' by feminist rhetoric at this stage, unfortunately.

What annoys me is that on the one hand here we have a woman suggesting that she doesn't think women should be treated any differently to men and feminists will echo that most of the time (excluding when queues are being formed for lifeboats of course) but yet there are times when they themselves will often imply that they should be treated with more regard than men in certain situations.

An example to illustrate that would be during the whole UCD 200 nonsense (photos of girl's were claimed to have been disturbed between some students and then rated) and Louise O'Neill went on the radio (The Last Word) to harrumph the nation. She came out with a lot of horseshite on that show but the most irritating thing which she said was in response to the suggestion that photos of naked boys were sometimes being passed around also.....

You really can't compare the two as female nudity and male nudity are treated in such different way. Male nudity won't have the same negative impact on a man's social standing. There's isn't the same amount of shame attached to male sexuality as there is to female sexuality. We have been shamed and silenced for hundreds of years and we carry that history with us. There is no point in comparing the two as the impact and the consequences are completely unequal for men and women for having photos shared.

So, Louise, who strives for equality and who is at pains to point out much men need feminism, feels that there should only be empathy for women who have compromising images of themselves shared on line. Hhhm, seems old George was right and some animals are indeed more equal than others

You can listen to that interview here.

ligerdub wrote: »

I'm gonna take a guess and suggest you probably haven't either. It's just a guess mind.

I mean let's take that list as it looks, how many books are there, 9, 10? I'd find it a tad unlikely that somebody would have read exactly the first 4 only.

If you bothered to google them they are papers not books that I read in order after pumpkin posted them.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't ask for that. I asked to point out which paper specifically shows that sex differences in behaviour are predomiannty biological. Because I've read 40 percent of them and they don't.

All you have to do is write the title which does. No summary needed. It's literally copying and pasting a title.

I cant say I've ready any, nor am i gong to.. but don't the titles give a pretty good indication of that they contain?

This is 1 reason why young Irish men need feminism

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/twenty-one-per-cent-of-irish-say-sex-without-consent-ok-in-certain-circumstances_en

Some of the numbers from that survey are f**king scary. For Ireland and Europe in general.

Scary to the point that I actually wonder how they were arrived at, actually.

this thread is soooooo FFS!

osarusan wrote: »

Some of the numbers from that survey are f**king scary. For Ireland and Europe in general.

Scary to the point that I actually wonder how they were arrived at, actually.

A lot of these surveys use a very misleading "ask about drunken sex, and then take that as 'rape' without any further context" technique. A lot of the "1 in 4" crap in the US stems from that - they ask women if they ever had a sexual encounter while drunk, or ever had one they only had hazy memories of the next day because of alcohol, and apply the word "rape" to it without actually asking whether the "victim" considered herself to have been raped.