If Mort Divine ruled the world

My default answer would be that it's an is. I'm sure there's a value judgment somewhere, but it doesn't arise unless someone thinks that boys playing with trucks is a bad thing.

One that more boys playing with trucks means that all boys should play with trucks. That's what I was getting at.
 
Well that makes more sense than saying that because a couple don't, they are being oppressed by people thinking it's odd or whatever.

I don't think it makes sense to say that giving young boys fire trucks is oppressive, but it doesn't make less sense than saying that boys should play with fire trucks.

Neither one makes sense, and I don't think there are varying degrees of senselessness.
 
It's raw numbers man, basically meaningless horseshit.

I understand that those figures were meaningless taking at face value, but isn't it telling of other issues? For instance, I think the computer science department at the college I went to was 90% male at college that was around 70% female. I'm trying not to blame some lizard-patriarchy, but what are the social conditions that give rise to this kind of issue?
 
I understand that those figures were meaningless taking at face value, but isn't it telling of other issues? For instance, I think the computer science department at the college I went to was 90% male at college that was around 70% female. I'm trying not to blame some lizard-patriarchy, but what are the social conditions that give rise to this kind of issue?

Is it even an issue? I'm sure if you looked at more repressed countries the computer departments would be more equal between the sexes. A college that is 70% women is probably the best example to simply show it's about choice, I doubt underhanded sexism could deter that many women from entering something they want to enter.
 
Is it even an issue? I'm sure if you looked at more repressed countries the computer departments would be more equal between the sexes. A college that is 70% women is probably the best example to simply show it's about choice, I doubt underhanded sexism could deter that many women from entering something they want to enter.

It just seems bizarre that the radical left would bellyache about a "wage-gap" when the most lucrative career paths are being pursued by males. You would think that they would push for integration into those fields by way of recruiting. I could imagine with such a small sub-set of females entering certain position that certain employer's hands are forced to hire a less qualified candidate just of "quotas" or w/e. I understand that the females at my school were choosing to pursue other majors, but what are the underlying forces driving such a parity in choice between genders?

I'm not trying to blame "sexism" per say because the issue could very well be a result of something from female culture.
 
Like I said, it's choice. How many women are really willing to make their whole life about work in the same way men are? On paper women tend to choose a more balanced life, just is the way it is.

To the SJWs/feminists, they're not really looking at the stats in a nuanced way, they're just screeching about the raw numbers and demanding that be fixed. If they instead formed some kind of initiative to get women interested in the fields that also pay more, that would be fine. Instead they look at economics as if it's magic or something.
 
Like I said, it's choice. How many women are really willing to make their whole life about work in the same way men are? On paper women tend to choose a more balanced life, just is the way it is.

To the SJWs/feminists, they're not really looking at the stats in a nuanced way, they're just screeching about the raw numbers and demanding that be fixed. If they instead formed some kind of initiative to get women interested in the fields that also pay more, that would be fine. Instead they look at economics as if it's magic or something.

I wonder what that state of affairs would be if men sought more balance at that large of a scale.
 
I don't think it makes sense to say that giving young boys fire trucks is oppressive, but it doesn't make less sense than saying that boys should play with fire trucks.

Neither one makes sense, and I don't think there are varying degrees of senselessness.

I'm using the thing-oriented vs people-oriented example as an example of broader general sex differences that are not purely socially engrained. Obviously, these differences are reinforced by the previously existing orientations being modeled by older persons, but they aren't arbitrary.
 
No, but not being arbitrary doesn't make them necessary either. The reason I linked the Aeon piece is that it critiques the tendency by progressives and conservatives to reify descriptive (or performative) behavior as prescriptive behavior.

Conservatives see that most young boys do play with trucks, and so most young boys should play with trucks. Progressives see that most young boys do play with trucks, and so most young boys should not play with trucks. Opposite responses yet similar in kind. According to Butler, neither side can claim virtue over the other based on prescription since doing so it a metaphysical argument.

Also, I'd be interested in an experiment that gave monkeys a mix of Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls and see what the breakdown is... I wonder if the male monkeys would just cross their arms and be like "what's with all these girly toys?" :rofl:
 
No, but not being arbitrary doesn't make them necessary either. The reason I linked the Aeon piece is that it critiques the tendency by progressives and conservatives to reify descriptive (or performative) behavior as prescriptive behavior.

Conservatives see that most young boys do play with trucks, and so most young boys should play with trucks. Progressives see that most young boys do play with trucks, and so most young boys should not play with trucks. Opposite responses yet similar in kind. According to Butler, neither side can claim virtue over the other based on prescription since doing so it a metaphysical argument.

Also, I'd be interested in an experiment that gave monkeys a mix of Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls and see what the breakdown is... I wonder if the male monkeys would just cross their arms and be like "what's with all these girly toys?" :rofl:

Re: Dolls, it's possible. Or the males would try to use them as some sort of tool and discover they weren't much use as such.

There are more examples than just trucks, and the research suggests that thing oriented vs people oriented are not on the same continuum either. I don't think it's a stretch to say that societies function more smoothly when they seek to work with benign tendencies of humans than against them. Of course, if one is a "hyper" progressive, there are no human tendencies except to power, which is bad when males have it, and everything males have and do is power. So males + trucks = rape.
 
Also, I'd be interested in an experiment that gave monkeys a mix of Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls and see what the breakdown is... I wonder if the male monkeys would just cross their arms and be like "what's with all these girly toys?" :rofl:

Better yet, throw in Barbie's pink Porsche alongside the red truck and make it really interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86
Better yet, throw in Barbie's pink Porsche alongside the red truck and make it really interesting.

I know I've read that pink wasn't always considered a girl color. I don't know the degree to which that is true, but I wouldn't be surprised of color trends were to some degree facilitated by the necessity of ease of marketing/production in the industrial age.
 
Agreed, colour is probably almost 100% arbitrary. In the same way a monkey isn't going to notice the difference between girls and boys dolls, they will also not notice the difference between gender-coloured vehicles and that was my only point lol.
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...l?referer=android-app://com.google.android.gm

So JP has made it into the NYT. Brooks doesn't "put him on blast", but I didn't think his writeup showed any understanding of Peterson at all. The comment section was better than I expected. Plenty of people with a positive take on JP. There were enough 'bigot' comments. I can't say I was surprised, but it was amusing to see how many ripped him for saying 'rehashed' or 'uninspired' stuff like "stand up straight" and "clean your room". Of course they aren't new directives, that's almost the point. I'd be interested in seeing the posture and rooms of those commenters.
 
latest