If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

If you can find an instance of political power being waged by someone through the wielding of knowledge or stories (not saying that there aren't instances of this), you will still see that this is only effective in so far as that knowledge or power was effective over those with the physical power.

I acknowledged this point. That doesn't mean that apparent access to knowledge played no less of a factor.

But I see no conflict in a claim that masculinity includes both wisdom and physical strength, as these things aren't mutually exclusive.

You misunderstand - I said that a physically frail man could wield power over physically strong men by proclaiming an esoteric access to knowledge. What I meant was that here we have an attribute typically associated with women (i.e. frailty) occupying a position of power.

However, I do see a problem with mentioning animals when we talk about human behavior, and this is a common fallback when biological interactions emerge in an argument. These comparisons aren't made when discussing other animal's behaviors, so I don't understand why are made in this context. "Why do alligators do this? Ostriches are different so alligators could be different!" However, since you mentioned female lions being stronger, if we look to see how that plays out in lion behavior, we see that the females do the hunting - they do the greater amount of physical labor involved in procuring the necessities of life. That seems consistent with pointing out that male roles in humans have tended towards the more physically demanding.

I don't how many different ways to explain myself; you always seem to misinterpret this.

My point was only to acknowledge the contingency of evolutionary behavior. Grounding social values regarding gender in biology such that the former are unyielding strikes me as being as fallacious as an attempt to ground identity in metaphysics, since it absolutizes masculinity and femininity with particular qualities that don't hold true in other animals. Any such grounding is simply an effort to substantiate a set of values beyond the social production of values themselves - in other words, a kind of metaphysics. I'm not trying to say that lions could choose not to eat meat because rabbits don't eat meat. I'm saying that the values that emerge from these behaviors are not necessary and can be radically different depending on how food is acquired, what kind of food, how much, and all of this can vary within categories like carnivorism or herbivorism.

In the end, so long as associating gender with biology has minimal problematic repercussions (it will always have some), then there's no problem in doing so; but it strikes me as foolhardy to institute a necessary hierarchy of values in correspondence with what we perceive to be those values in biological traits.

Well I think it will be the undoing of the species if there isn't a return to a more biologically rooted view. You've been clear that you don't find that to be a problem.

No, because it won't be the undoing of the species. It could very well change the species, though; but who knows, maybe change is an ending, I guess it depends on how you look at it.

We're always changing though, so I'm not sure what to do with that.

Only to the extent that firefighting doesn't require greater size/muscle mass. This is my original point that these social role divisions seem arbitrary in many cases at this point because technology is obscuring differences. At the rate of advance in the fields surrounding IVF, even childbearing is becoming disconnected/obscured.

Well, biology isn't an origin of anything. It's just one point. And considering the rapid changes in recent technology, who knows what to expect.

 

[Cythraul]

There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

I don't agree with this. I think that the concepts of manhood and womanhood get their very meanings through their association with biological sex and the distinct (perceived) teloi of males and females. Even the new, made-up gender categories that I'm aware of seem to be parasitic on this connection.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't agree with this. I think that the concepts of manhood and womanhood get their very meanings through their association with biological sex and the distinct (perceived) teloi of males and females. Even the new, made-up gender categories that I'm aware of seem to be parasitic on this connection.

Yeak, Dak and I have gone back and forth about this more than once. Ultimately I don't think this is something that can be proven one way or another because to do so requires access to origins that simply doesn't exist.

I actually agree with your comments about the "meanings" of manhood and womanhood and the parasitism of new genders on the originary (not original) binary of male and female. I think the question is simply whether the man/woman gender binary was an inevitable development out of primitive, pre-civilized, even nonhuman sexual behavior, or whether it was merely a happenstance of social evolution.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't make the argument that a non-gendered, or differently gendered, social organization would be necessarily better than the one we currently have. Ursula Le Guin toys with this idea in her novel The Left Hand of Darkness; and while the gender emancipation she imagines is laudable, I don't think we can definitively say that the society in which it occurs is better than the (arguably) more developed civilization that visits it (apologies for all the pronouns - go read the book ).

I'm confident that sexual biology has played a significant role in shaping gender norms. My objection derives from the fact that certain cultural values may be extrapolated from these norms that bear a decreasingly significant relation to them (i.e. the norms), and an increasingly significant relation to various means of political and social power.

 

[CiG]

has some good things to say but comes off like an idiot on his religious beliefs

Well he's in good company then, considering Rogan is basically the epitome of a douchey card-carrying atheist.

He is hiding behind his wall of academia to defend his bigotry.

Sounds like every professor I've heard of. Not that I would expect you to call out left-wing professors doing the same exact thing, because you're a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[EternalMetal]

I'm confident that sexual biology has played a significant role in shaping gender norms. My objection derives from the fact that certain cultural values may be extrapolated from these norms that bear a decreasingly significant relation to them (i.e. the norms), and an increasingly significant relation to various means of political and social power.

I agree with you here, but only to a point. Cultural values are inherently extrapolated from gender norms, and vice versa. Gender norms seem to be changing in most places that arent remotely rural, and therefore this also means that the cultural values of such distinction will change as well. You seem to be viewing gender norms as they have been defined traditionally, but in fact they have changed in relation to cultural values - with cultural values being the prime mover, and gender norms eventually being a reflection of these values.

The reason why there is a disconnect in gender norms is because of the contrast between the rural and urban cultural values in the same collective nation. The changes you refer to are primarily those in urban environments where man's physical advantage has practically been neutralized. However there are still jobs like EMS and firefighting where the muscle strength required to move physical bodies becomes a practical necessity. As an EMT I currently have a female partner who is very petite and has problems with lifting patients, and oftentimes I need to call for backup for more heavy lifting duties. Quite honestly this should not be acceptable, but progressive cultural values tend to gloss over real issues in the workplace such as this in light of empowering women. Many jobs in rural areas still require the physical strength of a man, and the necessity of this commodity and its implication on social values are viewed as degenerate and savage among those in urban environments (because of how it fundamentally conflicts with their own ideologies). An unfair assessment considering that rural production is still a necessity for urban life. Society as a whole is not developed far enough to allow for urban ideologies to pervade, and Trump's victory in the presidential election is symbolic of this. We may be reaching a point in society where we can start to move away from the traditional gender roles that have been pervasive throughout mankind's history, but we are still far from distancing ourselves entirely from what has worked in the past to get to the point where we are now.

Biology is not only pertinent to this discussion, but the main factor. The difference between male and female have always been capitalized upon to improve our chances of survival. Men traditionally assumed leadership because of physical differences, Dak is right here. Weak and feeble people may have contributed with valuable information in the past, but this is an exception; leaders lead by example, and for the majority of our past physical attributes were essential to gain influence. You disagree with a weaker man or woman? Beat him/her up, kill them, or whatever, and you gain control. This is savage behavior, but it is our past. And present to a certain point. Survival of the fittest still reigns supreme, but there has been a paradigm shift in recent decades that reduces the impact of physical prowess. Intelligence regardless of race and gender is gradually gaining traction in modern times, and only until recently has mankind started to make this distinction. Women have already proven themselves as being capable of leadership. However there are inherent biological differences between males and females, and the small sampling in recent years in career choices show that there is not exactly an equality of interest. The next step of humanity is to capitalize on the inherent strengths and weaknesses of people in general, and not just to appease a status quo of gender or race. The various strengths and weaknesses of genders and race will make themselves apparent (if they havent already), and this is all ok imo.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a good response, and I appreciate the point about the differences between rural and urban communities. That probably has some bearing on the perception of gender and its applicability.

I'm still not convinced on this point, though:

Men traditionally assumed leadership because of physical differences, Dak is right here. Weak and feeble people may have contributed with valuable information in the past, but this is an exception; leaders lead by example, and for the majority of our past physical attributes were essential to gain influence. You disagree with a weaker man or woman? Beat him/her up, kill them, or whatever, and you gain control. This is savage behavior, but it is our past.

Do you have some evidence for this, or some reason why you think so?

It is a past, that's for sure; but I'm not convinced it's our past. You seem to be suggesting that this form of dominance dictated political power in the earliest manifestations of civilization. While I agree that physical strength has undoubtedly been an element of political power, I don't think it's the most important aspect of it. I recall the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey when the hominids find the bone and use it as a weapon - definitely a display of (presumably) masculine strength. But this isn't civilization, and it isn't political power; it's simply tribal behavior, pack mentality, instinctive defense of natural resources. I don't think we can definitively say that there's any civilization there to speak of.

Now, physical strength certainly persists into the earliest manifestations of civil society, but the emergence of such cultures isn't dictated by the constitution of political power via physical strength: it's constituted by the invention of writing systems and knowledge production - paintings on cave walls, financial records, etc. (in other words, the historical moments that would have immediately followed the opening sequence of 2001). The people who wielded the most power in such circumstances were those who knew how to write and maintain such systems, especially if their maintenance was deemed spiritually necessary (it's widely believed that those who painted the images in the Lascaux and Chauvet caves were considered immensely important in their societies, and that their paintings served a purpose as important as hunting, which the paintings often depicted). This isn't to say physical strength and knowledge production are mutually exclusive. I'm simply questioning whether leadership positions went to men exclusively because of physical strength. They likely also were accorded to individuals intelligent enough to read, write, and speak; and such traits are not restricted to men (even if they have historically been restricted to men).

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Starting in 2019, if Your Film Isn’t Diverse, It Won’t Be Eligible for a BAFTA Award

 

[CiG]

Instead of promoting independent film making in the various "minority" communities which will inevitably lead to far superior films that represent these communities and their interests, lets just shoehorn more dykes and black women into films for no artistic reason.

Fugg yeah.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Instead of promoting independent film making in the various "minority" communities which will inevitably lead to far superior films that represent these communities and their interests, lets just shoehorn more dykes and black women into films for no artistic reason.

Fugg yeah.

This part killed me:

Many people will undoubtedly find this move to be blasphemous, leaning on the tired crutch of “artistic freedom” to label BAFTA as intrusive. They can live and die by that sword if they’d like, but they’ll only be proving that they’re not quite as creative or imaginative as they claim to be.

Nothing says being creative and imaginative like bowing down to an institution strictly to be eligible for an award.

 

[CiG]

These retards are just repeating the war-time censor guidelines of the film industry.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Starting in 2019, if Your Film Isn’t Diverse, It Won’t Be Eligible for a BAFTA Award

everyone knows you only win awards if you go full retard, may as well make it an actual rule.

 

[The Ozzman]

everyone knows you only win awards if you go full retard, may as well make it an actual rule.

So, does that mean when white people become a minority and they don't include them they won't be eligible?

 

[Baroque]

Starting in 2019, if Your Film Isn’t Diverse, It Won’t Be Eligible for a BAFTA Award

I'm pro-diversity, and that is still a bullshit rule. By forcing every film to have diversity, you're actually making films as a whole less diverse. And it doesn't make any sense in some historical films and etc.

 

[rms]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertg...e-of-overdose-deaths-in-the-u-s/#2eeaae6174d8

Can't wait for some neo-nazi to suggest pharmaceutical companies are racist because these heroin deaths are more than likely disproportionately white and then everyone loses their mind

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

everyone knows you only win awards if you go full retard, may as well make it an actual rule.

Seeing as the amount of film awards that I think are actually worth a shit these days are slim to none, I've little knowledge of how the BAFTA's operate. Do they have a best foreign film category? If so, would an Asian film made by a 100% Asian cast and crew, only financed by Asian backers be disqualified?

 

[CiG]

I'm pro-diversity, and that is still a bullshit rule. By forcing every film to have diversity, you're actually making films as a whole less diverse. And it doesn't make any sense in some historical films and etc.

What does "pro-diversity" even mean anyway?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Seeing as the amount of film awards that I think are actually worth a shit these days are slim to none, I've little knowledge of how the BAFTA's operate. Do they have a best foreign film category? If so, would an Asian film made by a 100% Asian cast and crew, only financed by Asian backers be disqualified?

this probably doesn't answer your question, but in asia they call it divershitty

 

[Dak]

Blatant misrepresentation.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/23/links-1216-the-site-before-christmas/

Forget fake news. If you really want to see what’s going on with the media, check out the differing ways the Washington Post versus Marginal Revolution report the same study on historical Asian-American incomes, then read the study itself.

Also:

A Muslim woman who claimed that a white man threatened to set her on fire for wearing a hijab just after the election of Donald Trump is to be charged with a felony for filing a false report after a police investigation. This one makes me angry because it was in Ann Arbor (where I work) and really freaked out one of my patients; it’s important to remember that these kinds of things have real-world consequences beyond The Internet Discourse. Related: during the election, a black church was set on fire and covered with Trump graffiti; a black member of the church has now been charged with the crime. Related: pro-Trump swastikas and KKK graffiti across Nassau Community College apparently drawn by Indian-American man. I do not want to cherry-pick/Chinese-robber false hate crimes, but I think these were the three top hate crime stories I hear during the election and it concerns me that it’s not being more widely reported that all three were false. Also related: SLPC investigation of hate crimes after Trump election covered up 2,000 reports of hate incidents against white students.

 

[CiG]

I forget who said it but, bigotry is in short supply but high demand.

 

[rms]

https://twitter.com/ciccmaher

lol is all I can say