GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:1. I have got to wonder how many have received their notion of 'feminism' strictly through popular media, or through older notions of the form? I know women at the big uni who teach feminism as synonymous with humanism, and it has been this way for several decades. There's nothing separatist or hegemonic about it: their target is sexism; their aim is everyone's release from it, up to and most certainly including the male paradigms that every small boy has suffered from his playground name-calling; his disinterest in sports; his disinclination to see women as prey; his 'unmanly' sensitivities to thought, art, philosophy, retrospection, etc. and anything else that he 'violates' regarding the traditional male paradigm. Most of the women I know who teach feminism, teach it as a matter breaking all behavioral expectations that are supposed to align themselves with one's sex. Interestingly, a few of them might even be a friend to the idea that women have and can have what are considered traditionally masculine traits and vice versa. Any kind of persecution over failure to meet the traditional paradigm is the target of a few of these women. They are not trying to align themselves with the male paradigm, or promote a strictly female paradigm. They are trying to get rid of the paradigms altogether. That's the ground you ought to be addressing your complaints to, at least, regarding this kind of feminism.

It's amusing how you define the male paradigm, you don't realize that this "traditional male paradigm" that you speak of has been perpetuated by the feminists themselves.

"his 'unmanly' sensitivities to thought, art, philosophy, retrospection, etc."

All these activities were in the domain of men before women claimed them; bringing down their standards in the process.It happens with everything: a genius breaks through, the best of men follow, then lower rung men follow with women.If women grow to a majority in them, men start leaving and the activity becomes unmanly.

Pye I appreciate these women's efforts but these women don't realize that the difference that occurs during puberty changes everything.Their sense of protecting children is well and good but sometimes risking children to dangers is better.
They might like and appreciate feminine traits in boys when young but they don't think of the future, when he has grown into a man, he might then become afflicted with a cognitive dissonance that females were subjected to by Victorian morals and become worthless for himself and his woman.
Similarly the tomboyish girls who would have rather given into their femininity instead try to put on a false sense of masculinity.
Finally these are outliers, unless you try and make girls more tomboyish since they have a physical advantage before puberty.

The most unfortunate thing: women like being treated as sex objects when sprinkled with some words.As a result conscientious men lose out to thugs when it comes to relationships with women. PUAs are remedying and worsening the sexual situation at the same time.

2. We cannot say "the feminists" anymore, any more than we can say what "they" think. Saying that displays one's ignorance of the splintered views that characterize anything that falls under this rubric these days. It is a wildly mixed bag right now. It's largely been watered down to something called Gender Studies.

So?

3. Further, I know of a species of feminism that is expressly focused upon differences. It came quickly upon the heels of the women-just-need-to-prove-they-can-do-anything-a-man does. THAT notion has been being criticized since it appeared, by women who call themselves feminists. It is expressly the mal-formed notion that men and women experience the same things and/or have equal capacities and reactions to the world that they are arguing against.

And I know a species of sharks that doesn't kill with its teeth.Feminism has to die because of the inevitable reason that anything that gets a preponderance of women will turn on itself, since it will soon be enervated of reason.

4. The way I have seen the word "equality" used these day in any feminist context is simply "equality of opportunity." Period. Any human being interested in the promotion of human excellence would be an idiot to deny based on sex-roles any human effort before it has a chance to succeed or fail.

No, no, no. The equality for feminists(the ones who are the most vocal and most visible) is equality of results where the equality is worthy of having.
They want equality at the top(CEOs) but not at the bottom jobs(glass floor).They want equal amount of girls in STEM fields while colleges are 60% females overall.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... arman.html

In the most gender-equal countries the situation is so bad that boys are less in even STEM fields, which is deplorable since they have better aptitude for them.When you have institutes that cater for women education and improvement in their status, fund that flow in from the government, how could you even say that they stand for equal opportunity anymore.How is that even equal?
Title IX is the biggest travesty of the so-called equality of opportunity.

5. I would seriously love to see some self-education here on this issue, because most person's framework when they discuss "feminism" is based on a definition from the dark ages and knows nothing about the fractal and conflicting notions that inhabit the rubric now. You might be surprised to find how a few of these notions are quite sympathetic to a number of the aims and grounds of this very forum.

Reason stands the test of time.
Feminism is a mere passing phase where men lose their masculinity and women gain some, thus leveling the field somewhat.Weininger mentions this in his work.

I have read much of feminism's basis, especially the gender/sex dichotomy before reading its critique and it doesn't hold up.
No, it doesn't matter if there is/was a worthy cell in a cancerous being.A corpse should be removed before it starts rotting; maggots are already nested in what was feminism, going frankenstein on it won't help.

Pye wrote:6. to be fair, there is indeed a species of female-centered feminism that points to what they call "female values" and how promotion of these might offset the male-dominance model that has characterized a lot of history - up to and including our attitudes toward the 'use' and dispensation of the environment; colonization of peoples who are other-than industrialized society; and of course, the business of war. Some of it is done through taoist notions, like "Know the white; keep to the black"; passivity over aggression, etc. in everything from how we farm food (aggressively) to how we raise animals for consumption (aggressively) to how we misunderstand environmental interrelationship in favor of a top-down view of things, with man as the master of all.

Feelings don't have value.Feminine has no value.The male dominance holds because males have more masculinity, as it is now, both women and men are getting feminised because the masculinity is an organised society is centred in institutes of power.
Since men can fall more their change is more apparent. Read Satyr's good work on the subject that I linked in my first post, it's very comprehensive.

7. I also know of people who call themselves feminist who have dedicated their time to unraveling god-belief and religion as artifacts of reified beliefs in man's notion of himself as at the 'top' of the chain.

Man is the top of the chain, isn't that the truth?

8. Another species of feminists takes after economic structures exactly pointed out in Kelly's essay. I recall some of the blazing ["feminist"] critiques of the forces of capitalism that led women to believe that Marxism might be their opportunity to get across the commodification of women themselves.

I have read in some places that provide a startling comparison of Marxism and Feminism and how Marxism is one of the major influencing force on feminism.The oppression of one class by the other is classic Marxism.

9. And, yes, I heard-tell of a uni-teacher who has stood under the umbrella of "feminism" in order to support everything from high-heels to make-up to anything else a woman might fancy as defendable and necessary to her sense of the feminine.

Woman's right to choose?

10. And who can forget Beauvoir. 60 years ago she pointed out the victim-nature of many women and how the only excuse for their oppression is themselves. I believe Beauvoir is known as a "feminist," too. ;)

Thanks for that.

I'm not the author of this situation: that anything wandering onto the territory of sex/gender issues has stood under this most misunderstood term: feminism. If one means to address "feminism," one should at least make it clear which belief structure they mean to take after. Kelly made it relatively clear which type of feminism she is critiquing (phenomenal equality), but seriously, the only place I see that in evidence anymore is in popular culture. And we all know what kind of handle popular culture has on anything.

Schools become grade based, exams are deemed less worthy than coursework, girls get inflated grades in school, SAT scores are degraded for college entrance since girls score less, especially on maths, college grades again reflect the coursework rather than aptitude, then workplaces try to accomodate women by becoming more co-operative rather than competing. Reduction of competition works for the advantage of women and disadvantage of men.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/sommers-war.html

The real fallout of feminism will be seen in a few years, once the so-called fruits of equality will start to rot on itself.
Pye you might think of yourself as a true feminist who isn't tainted by these strands of feminism but it doesn't matter, for once you start removing the layers, feminism, just like feminine mystique, comes to naught.
Infact it's worse that naught, for the few positives that it has gained for women and men, it has also yielded a multitude of negatives that are leading to the decay of the western society and civilization.

dejavu wrote:NN

Women are not the enemies, they can't be, 1)because men care for women 2)enmity is between equals.

Women are not "the enemies", but not for those reasons.

I speak for everyone. Can you do that, or does inequality force you to your sex? Lovers alone will survive my fire.

SELF.



Carmel can see.

Women have no self? Hence they are not equal to men?

I speak for myself, the self that thinks that it thinks but is merely manipulating the works of geniuses from past with its limited intellect.

Women's love for men with ego, with an exaggerated sense of self, compared for men's love for beauty otoh?

I am not good at aphorisms and I think that you don't always speak with the intention of making perfect sense.

namae nanka: Pye you might think of yourself as a true feminist who isn't tainted by these strands of feminism

I don't think myself any kind of feminist, since there is no "true feminism" at all, but thanks for your observations. The purpose of my summarizing the various fractal schools of its thought (that I know of) is to break open the limited view of what people are critiquing here. And the first thing that needs broken open is that any kind of discussion regarding sex and gender conditions via-a-vis women must necessarily be considered "feminist" in nature. So, too, that any comment made by a women that critiques society. That's the mess academia has made of it, too.

You might want to ask some of the forum founders what kind of "feminists" they are, for I believe some of them have stated their views on women as being more humane to women than any kind of feminism that precedes them.

namae nanka: Infact it's worse that naught, for the few positives that it has gained for women and men, it has also yielded a multitude of negatives that are leading to the decay of the western society and civilization.

The 'decay' of western society and civilization doesn't bother me. It needs to decay, will and shall decay in the cosmic scheme of things, and in favor of new forms of human consciousness in the world. You might have a little more faith that excellence will always emerge - in spite and because of this.

You sound . . . scared?

Anyway, thanks for your observations.

And by the way:

namae nanka: Man is the top of the chain, isn't that the truth?

How do the links in a chain have a 'top'?

namae nanka:
Women are not the enemies, they can't be, 1)because men care for women 2)enmity is between equals.

Carmel:
You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that men and women aren't equals. The empirical data implies otherwise, i.e modern neuroscience, cognitive tests, i.q. tests. At best some i.q. tests indicate a 3-4 advantage in men, but given that the standard deviation within a single individual is 15 points at any given time, this difference is so negligible that it is barely worth mentioning.

namae nanka:
It's the current ideologies prevailing in society, the inability of people to accept the truth that men and women are not equal and trying their best to bring about equality by artificial means; lowering standards as Kelly points out, being one of them, institutes that specifically help women another.

Carmel:
How, specifically, does education favor women? Title IX(U.S) protects men from gender based discrimination, as well as protecting women. University admissions are based on objective data and achievements. Women are outperforming men scholastically at the both the high school and University levels. It sounds to me like you're making excuses for men's failings in the academic realm i.e. victim mentality. As they say here, genius overcomes social obstacles, especially imagined ones.

namae nanka:
Masculinists oppose these artificial means, especially where equality has been achieved and gone in the direction of women and when law discriminates against men as fathers and husbands in divorce and domestic abuse cases respectively.

Carmel:
What laws, specifically? ..but again, this sounds like a victim mentality. If men think divorce laws are unjust, why do they get married in the first place?

i have absolutely no more interest in this subject.
my final words on it are this :

i love men.
i love intelligent men.
i love compassionate men.

i love people in general.

men that have issues with women have psycological problems & vice versa.

Without femininity the is no masculinity.
Without ignorance there is no wisdom.

You guys are so funny.

i love you all.

Pye wrote:

namae nanka: Pye you might think of yourself as a true feminist who isn't tainted by these strands of feminism

I don't think myself any kind of feminist, since there is no "true feminism" at all, but thanks for your observations. The purpose of my summarizing the various fractal schools of its thought (that I know of) is to break open the limited view of what people are critiquing here. And the first thing that needs broken open is that any kind of discussion regarding sex and gender conditions via-a-vis women must necessarily be considered "feminist" in nature. So, too, that any comment made by a women that critiques society. That's the mess academia has made of it, too.

Evey woman is a feminist who wants to be equal to a man.And the sex-gender dichotomy is feminism's basis isn't it? Or is there some feminism that doesn't use and arrives from thin air? Don't bother, I don't care.

You might want to ask some of the forum founders what kind of "feminists" they are, for I believe some of them have stated their views on women as being more humane to women than any kind of feminism that precedes them.

Sarcasm? I have been lurking here for some months now.Their views on women are indeed more humane compared to what they should be currently.

The 'decay' of western society and civilization doesn't bother me. It needs to decay, will and shall decay in the cosmic scheme of things, and in favor of new forms of human consciousness in the world. You might have a little more faith that excellence will always emerge - in spite and because of this.

haha yeah right and why are we having this discussion again? Why don't you go and wait in that corner for your excellence to emerge?

You sound . . . scared?

Yup scared shitless, pissing my pants.Save meee!!

Anyway, thanks for your observations.

Glad to be of service madam.

And by the way:

namae nanka: Man is the top of the chain, isn't that the truth?

How do the links in a chain have a 'top'?

....I'm speechless; your powers of observation must have been legendary.

Carmel:
You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that men and women aren't equals.

You prove that they are.
Hint: why do women say they are selfless while speaking of themselves all the time?

The empirical data implies otherwise, i.e modern neuroscience, cognitive tests, i.q. tests. At best some i.q. tests indicate a 3-4 advantage in men, but given that the standard deviation within a single individual is 15 points at any given time, this difference is so negligible that it is barely worth mentioning.

And yet you mention it.Statistical data when taken for a large set cancels out noise.It's not that all women were suddenly 10 points lower on that day.
The variability of men is the bigger factor even if you don't like that you are an average woman and yet dumber than an average man.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -Lynn.html

"For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism."

How, specifically, does education favor women?

Because if you believe in equality of men and women it should?
I don't, so it must favour women even more.

Title IX(U.S) protects men from gender based discrimination, as well as protecting women.

haha like the laws protect men from gender based discrimination?

University admissions are based on objective data and achievements.

School grades are as objective as you want them to be.Read up war against boys by Christina Hoff Sommers that I linked before or google it.

Women are outperforming men scholastically at the both the high school and University levels. It sounds to me like you're making excuses for men's failings in the academic realm i.e. victim mentality.

Grades are the most subjective criteria especially in humanities where the women are most predominant.STEM fields are still predominantly men.

As they say here, genius overcomes social obstacles, especially imagined ones.

And who said that genius has anything to do with school or college education ?

What laws, specifically? ..but again, this sounds like a victim mentality. If men think divorce laws are unjust, why do they get married in the first place?

Victim mentality is justified when the law system is against you.Victim mentality is unjustified when you cry discrimination because you can't get the top job.

If men think divorce laws are unjust, why do they get married in the first place?

Because mass media still tells them how wonderful marriage is for men.However as MSM increasingly caters to women and men turn to internet they will come to know how good marriage is for them.Do you read articles about man-child in papers? They are but lamentations of women who are ignored by these men.

http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

I think you ladies will have a better time here, the excellence of future:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen ... s-of-poon/

Carmel wrote:Kelly:
Why is your own complaint not subject to the same charge?

Carmel:
It is. I was whining about the whiners. Whining begets whining, get it? :)

Okay, so you have accepted the egoism in your behaviour.

But in my opinion, not all criticism is egoistic. If you have a case to make to the contrary, make it. Otherwise, it's hypocritical for you to tell others to stop whining. You should be always silent in that case.


...

Pye wrote:1. I have got to wonder how many have received their notion of 'feminism' strictly through popular media, or through older notions of the form? I know women at the big uni who teach feminism as synonymous with humanism, and it has been this way for several decades. There's nothing separatist or hegemonic about it: their target is sexism; their aim is everyone's release from it, up to and most certainly including the male paradigms that every small boy has suffered from his playground name-calling; his disinterest in sports; his disinclination to see women as prey; his 'unmanly' sensitivities to thought, art, philosophy, retrospection, etc. and anything else that he 'violates' regarding the traditional male paradigm. Most of the women I know who teach feminism, teach it as a matter breaking all behavioral expectations that are supposed to align themselves with one's sex.

What, ignore all sexual dimorphism? That flies in the face of good science.

Interestingly, a few of them might even be a friend to the idea that women have and can have what are considered traditionally masculine traits and vice versa. Any kind of persecution over failure to meet the traditional paradigm is the target of a few of these women. They are not trying to align themselves with the male paradigm, or promote a strictly female paradigm. They are trying to get rid of the paradigms altogether. That's the ground you ought to be addressing your complaints to, at least, regarding this kind of feminism.

This is also flying in the face of good science, which recognises that sexual dimorphism exists on a continuum. Intersex individuals lie generally in the middle. Any good scientist who understands this, would also realise that any particular individual can have partly male traits, partly female, and that the majority tend obviously more to one side than another.

Making everything vague and blurry is obviously defeating the functions of consciousness. Or perhaps, it's inevitable for unconscious to blur distinctions.

because:

2. We cannot say "the feminists" anymore, any more than we can say what "they" think. Saying that displays one's ignorance of the splintered views that characterize anything that falls under this rubric these days. It is a wildly mixed bag right now. It's largely been watered down to something called Gender Studies.

Vague. Precisely that which my satire praised. Feminist means whatever one wishes it to mean. In the context of this discussion, feminists are the pioneering spirits of Vagueness, the warriors of mediocrity.

3. Further, I know of a species of feminism that is expressly focused upon differences. It came quickly upon the heels of the women-just-need-to-prove-they-can-do-anything-a-man does. THAT notion has been being criticized since it appeared, by women who call themselves feminists. It is expressly the mal-formed notion that men and women experience the same things and/or have equal capacities and reactions to the world that they are arguing against.

Who is saying it is a malformed notion? You, or the second group of feminists?

4. The way I have seen the word "equality" used these day in any feminist context is simply "equality of opportunity." Period. Any human being interested in the promotion of human excellence would be an idiot to deny based on sex-roles any human effort before it has a chance to succeed or fail.

Well, apart from contradicting your point 2, by grouping all feminists into one basket (which you have been arguing was impossible), as well as possibly contradicting point 3, if you yourself was saying that men and women cannot be measured by the same standards, this statement is totally irrelevant.

The critique of women and feminine consciousness does not deny efforts. That seems an utterly fatuous thing to do. It states that women generally don't show any evidence of making sufficient effort. I am not one of those who says that men and women cannot be judged by the same standards of excellence.

5. I would seriously love to see some self-education here on this issue, because most person's framework when they discuss "feminism" is based on a definition from the dark ages and knows nothing about the fractal and conflicting notions that inhabit the rubric now. You might be surprised to find how a few of these notions are quite sympathetic to a number of the aims and grounds of this very forum.

If you really wished people to be educated, and accept the "fracture" of contemporary feminism, then you'd be quite willing to let people remain with their own different views.

But to be fair, I'll be open-minded and examine the claims of sympathy that you present next.

6. to be fair, there is indeed a species of female-centered feminism that points to what they call "female values" and how promotion of these might offset the male-dominance model that has characterized a lot of history - up to and including our attitudes toward the 'use' and dispensation of the environment; colonization of peoples who are other-than industrialized society; and of course, the business of war. Some of it is done through taoist notions, like "Know the white; keep to the black"; passivity over aggression, etc. in everything from how we farm food (aggressively) to how we raise animals for consumption (aggressively) to how we misunderstand environmental interrelationship in favor of a top-down view of things, with man as the master of all.

"female-centred feminism" tickled me, I must admit. The "non-female-centred" feminism is exactly the same, but incognito.

But this is a very superficial kind of sympathy. Discriminating between the sexes here is only used to bolster the feminine. It's hardly related to the aims and grounds of this forum. Lord, I would have thought you were perceptive enough to recognise how frequently the "female-dominance model" has been exposed as foolhardy in this venue. For instance, the notion that egotism is greater in males because it is overt. Again, Vagueness reigns supreme here: hidden egotism is much, much worse when it disguises itself as egolessness, because it is dishonest.

7. I also know of people who call themselves feminist who have dedicated their time to unraveling god-belief and religion as artifacts of reified beliefs in man's notion of himself as at the 'top' of the chain.

The top of the chain of reason, and traits helpful in the journey of becoming as wise as possible, so far as the evidence demonstrates, is indeed man. Any other kind of superiority in terms of masculine traits is irrelevant to this forum. If this is another example of sympathy with the aims and grounds of this forum, I am really agog to know what you think is antagonistic.

8. Another species of feminists takes after economic structures exactly pointed out in Kelly's essay. I recall some of the blazing ["feminist"] critiques of the forces of capitalism that led women to believe that Marxism might be their opportunity to get across the commodification of women themselves.

If you thought it was an economic essay, you're much mistaken, so making the connection with Marxism is a joke. Anyway, consumerism isn't an economic structure, it's economic suicide.

In other words, I see no sign that my use of the term "feminist" has been misguided, in talking about the attitude that cherishes vagueness and mediocrity. On the contrary, you have added more confirmation. But you still have two more examples, so perhaps there is hope..... ;-)

9. And, yes, I heard-tell of a uni-teacher who has stood under the umbrella of "feminism" in order to support everything from high-heels to make-up to anything else a woman might fancy as defendable and necessary to her sense of the feminine.

Well, that's definitely more confirmation that I'm using the term "feminism" quite suitably. Camille Paglia comes to mind as one of those types of feminists (read: advocates of Vague), even though she did it eloquently and powerfully. And let's not forget the piles of other "strong pioneering independent women" who push for a "sexy" sexual identity.

Madonna's trademark:

Vague. Strike a pose, there's nothing to it.

10. And who can forget Beauvoir. 60 years ago she pointed out the victim-nature of many women and how the only excuse for their oppression is themselves. I believe Beauvoir is known as a "feminist," too. ;)

Beauvoir's view of emancipation was crap, frankly. She believed that women were unable to transcend the "immanent" because they were forced to take an identity relative to men. It's only very remotely connected to the views of emancipation, female or male, on this board.

I'm not the author of this situation: that anything wandering onto the territory of sex/gender issues has stood under this most misunderstood term: feminism. If one means to address "feminism," one should at least make it clear which belief structure they mean to take after. Kelly made it relatively clear which type of feminism she is critiquing (phenomenal equality), but seriously, the only place I see that in evidence anymore is in popular culture. And we all know what kind of handle popular culture has on anything.
...

There is no evidence of "phenomenal equality" at all, but only if you mean evidence of women actually matching themselves to exactly the same standards as men and surpassing them, or, more accurately, having high ambitions and actually achieving them in spades - then going on to set even higher ambitions. Being vague is not an ambition, that's a contradiction of ambition.

But phenomenal equality? No, I meant the goal of completing consciousness in Nirvana. That's not phenomenal, and nor can it be measured comparable to other people.


Kelly

...

Kelly wrote:But phenomenal equality? No, I meant the goal of completing consciousness in Nirvana. That's not phenomenal, and nor can it be measured comparable to other people.

edit: By the way, what does phenomenal equality refer to? phenomena in which men and women are equal? such as..... :) ?


I'm just not sure I follow this last bit, a phenomena is something finite that has a birth and a death, right? isn't the conscious of something finite? in that even a correct understanding of Reality has it's own causes.

As for comparing it, when it is something internal... It's hard to know what people really think, all u can do is judge their actions.

Carmel to namae wrote:You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that men and women aren't equals. The empirical data implies otherwise, i.e modern neuroscience, cognitive tests, i.q. tests.

University admissions are based on objective data and achievements. Women are outperforming men scholastically at the both the high school and University levels. It sounds to me like you're making excuses for men's failings in the academic realm i.e. victim mentality.

Why Gender Matters

Sax gives many references to past reports in various scientific journals, but not all are online. I've provided links where I could find the articles.

There is a wealth of information there, clearly contradicting your first point, and indicating strongly the influence of feminist-driven research on the education system.

namae: Masculinists oppose these artificial means, especially where equality has been achieved and gone in the direction of women and when law discriminates against men as fathers and husbands in divorce and domestic abuse cases respectively.

Carmel: What laws, specifically?

I Googled "family law gender" and came up with a couple of reports:
Australian custody law changes to be more father-friendly
...but not totally...
US law shows loopholes

If men think divorce laws are unjust, why do they get married in the first place?

It may be used as evidence that they are a committed father, not just a biological father. This is rather important in trying to gain custody rights, where the mother has made false accusations. My downstairs fellow bedsit tenant is an example. On the occasions last year where the mother arrived to drop off their young boy, or pick him up, she was always loudly nasty to him, excitable, and leaping to conclusions about his bad parenting. It was quite a trial for all of us to have to listen to her, and to have to watch him suffering without recourse. It is not hard to see how the law can be used to make a father look bad, and thus exclude him from his children's lives.

Generally, I don't think it is all that helpful to get involved in discussing the men's rights movement on this forum, but it is revealing in what the evidence shows about feminine psychology.

...

namae nanka:

You prove that they are.
Hint: why do women say they are selfless while speaking of themselves all the time?

Carmel:
Actually, that's what you and other xenophobes are doing, speaking and whining about women all the time. We can certainly talk about another subject if you'd rather. I, in fact, would prefer it. As it happens, I find these most of these gender discussions redundant and tedious. Your comments about women don't offend me as a women. They offend my sense of intellectual integrity i.e. you are spreading misinformation. I am merely correcting some of the blatantly incorrect ones.

namae nanka:
And yet you mention it.Statistical data when taken for a large set cancels out noise.It's not that all women were suddenly 10 points lower on that day.
The variability of men is the bigger factor even

Carmel:
There is no discernable content here and your poor grammatical structure makes much of what you say essentially meaningless. Is English your second language? Apparently, you don't understand what "standard deviation" means. If, perchance, you've never taken a basic statistics course, this would be understandable. I could explain it to you if you'd like.

Namae nanka:
if you don't like that you are an average woman and yet dumber than an average man.

Carmel:
This is merely an ad hominen attack, a clear indication of a weak argument or an attempt to boost your ego by insulting someone else. You demean yourself when you engage is this type of adolescent behaviour.

Namae nanka:
"For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism."

Carmel:
Good for those in the top .4% of men, but the other 99.6% of men really ought to quit hanging onto other men's intelligence . It won't change their mediocrity and averageness...ever.

namae nanka:
Because if you believe in equality of men and women it should?
I don't, so it must favour women even more.

Carmel:
This makes no sense.

Carmel previousy:

Title IX(U.S) protects men from gender based discrimination, as well as protecting women.

namae nanka:
haha like the laws protect men from gender based discrimination?

Carmel:
Yes, they do in the U.S., in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972.

namae nanka:
School grades are as objective as you want them to be.Read up war against boys by Christina Hoff Sommers that I linked before or google it.

Carmel:
I've read her in the past, in fact, much of what I said in my previous post was based on her findings, such as this:

Women are outperforming men scholastically at the both the high school and University levels. It sounds to me like you're making excuses for men's failings in the academic realm i.e. victim mentality.

...
The S.A.T.s are standardized, objective tests. Girls and boys perform nearly equally in all categories on this test. Boys score only slighty better than girls in mathematics. The difference is negligible. The above said applies from 1980-2009.(U.S.)(Source: World Almanac 2010)

Also, U.S. students are required to take yearly standardized tests, at every grade level, in all subjects. There is nothing "subjective" about them.

namae nanka:
And who said that genius has anything to do with school or college education ?

Carmel:
No one did. You are the one who initiated the subject of education.

namae nanka:
Victim mentality is justified when the law system is against you.Victim mentality is unjustified when you cry discrimination because you can't get the top job.

Carmel:
What law are you referring to? In the U.S. men and women can't be discriminated against on the basis of gender, at least not legally, though "The Old Boys Network" is still firmly in place in many fields, i.e. politics and likely academia, according to what Pye wrote. Strong women(like Pye) don't let it interfere with their goals. They acknowledge it and carry on with their goals. No big deal.

namae nanka:
Because mass media still tells them how wonderful marriage is for men.However as MSM increasingly caters to women and men turn to internet they will come to know how good marriage is for them.Do you read articles about man-child in papers? They are but lamentations of women who are ignored by these men.

Carmel:
Why are men buying into mass media marketing of marriage? ... This whole paragraph is a bit confusing to me, especially "articles about man-child in papers". What does this mean?

Kelly Jones wrote:

Carmel to namae wrote:You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that men and women aren't equals. The empirical data implies otherwise, i.e modern neuroscience, cognitive tests, i.q. tests.

University admissions are based on objective data and achievements. Women are outperforming men scholastically at the both the high school and University levels. It sounds to me like you're making excuses for men's failings in the academic realm i.e. victim mentality.

Why Gender Matters

Sax gives many references to past reports in various scientific journals, but not all are online. I've provided links where I could find the articles.

Carmel:
Sax has some credibility issues, but I will accept findings from viable scientific journals as evidence. I didn't see any that specifically refuted my claims. If you'd care to post the links, I will gladly take a look.

Kelly:
There is a wealth of information there, clearly contradicting your first point, and indicating strongly the influence of feminist-driven research on the education system.

Carmel:
See above statement.
I used the same author that namae nanka recommended. The S.A.T. data is from the World Almanac, which is simply raw data. What viable(non biased) evidence do you have that research on the education system is feminist driven?

Carmel,

I am unable to do anything but wonder at your response:
"I didn't see any that specifically refuted my claims. If you'd care to post the links, I will gladly take a look."

Okay, then. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Say I misunderstood your claim and you were agreeing with namae's implication, namely, that men and women aren't equals, since that only equals can be enemies. If so, that would make sense of your reply. But you replied that he hadn't provided any evidence, particularly neurological, to support the claim (meaning, you disagreed with him). On that basis, I provided a link to a website containing numerous references to empirical observations to support the statement that men and women are not the same -- and that if you read the website, your questions would be fully answered.

I'm going to go with my hunch that you didn't actually read the page, and that you do think women and men are, in most respects, the same. Otherwise, you wouldn't need me to pull out the obvious references to the influence on the educational system by a feminist-driven ideology, from the page....

...

Many times it's just as relevant and important to examine the opposition as it is to study the details of the position itself. In case of Leonard Sax, I noticed, through the Wikipedia page, the main criticism sounding like:

• "relationship blogger" and freelance author Elizabeth Weil, believing she's actually making an argument when saying it's "at odds with the principles of US public school" and ranting on how it would go against "American principles" or whatever it "means to be American"
• the same Weil in the NY-times about an unspecified "many academics and progressives" who would be "infuriated", exemplified by one case where a co-speaker was quite upset, canceling his own speech, calling the former presentation "sexist rubbish" without the hint of an argument in sight, or at least not reported on.
• another blogger Mark Liberman, a "professor of linguistics and computer science" who focuses mainly on inaccuracies in an aged online webpage and ignores completely any further published work in the books or updated web pubications

Perhaps it's best said like Sax himself puts it (to Liberman):

It is entirely possible that the sex differences we observe ... are not due to sex differences in auditory acuity, but to sex differences in the pace of brain development or to some other factor. The best way to determine the truth, I believe, is not to engage in a politically-charged exchange of insults, but rather to consider all the relevant research as dispassionately as possible.

Though I haven't read all of the references in Sax's essay, what I've been able to access online has been sufficient to suggest to me that Sax has done a credible job at interpreting quite complicated information - often about genetics and biochemistry - without the ideological agenda mentioned by Liberman et al. I believe that Liberman's profession as a linguist doesn't qualify him to discredit the actual scientific reports, but it does enable him to tackle Sax's rhetoric. It's true that Sax has some passion for his subject, particularly when it comes to trying to help parents and teachers understand the differing needs of children. He gets quite emphatic about not buying violent video games for a son, for example. That seems quite understandable to me, and I don't think there is any serious deviation from the meanings of the reports in doing so. Sax seems to have put them into simple, uncomplicated speech --- probably what the scientists themselves would be hoping for.

...

Diebert, no not quite.
His critcs call his "work" pseudoscience and after having read much of it myself, I would have to agree. It's embarrassingly rudimentary.

Kelly, so you have no viable scientific journal entries to back up your claim because I will accept no less. I'm genuinely not interested in blatantly biased and substandard "works"(Sax).

Carmel wrote:His critics call his "work" pseudoscience and after having read much of it myself, I would have to agree. It's embarrassingly rudimentary.

Rudimentary doesn't need to be embarrassing.

Your unwillingness, or inability, to put in just one or two examples of the bad science after all the trouble you went through of reading him so extensively, seems actually more reason for embarrassment.

Not to mention to invoke "critics" without names, and that after all your inquiries! So selfishly hogging of important information. Enlighten me, as I'm not that familiar at all with the specifics of Sax his work. So far it has been more interesting to see how so-called critics come to their unsubstantial claims.

Kelly
Otherwise, you wouldn't need me to pull out the obvious references to the influence on the educational system by a feminist-driven ideology, from the page....

Carmel:
You're changing your claim here. Your original claim was that "research" on the education system was driven by feminism which you have yet to prove.

...and your "hunch" is wrong. I read much of that tripe you posted. My hunch is that you posted that in lieu of evidence because you don't actually have any that is from a viable science journal for your counter claims (about I.Q. and academic scores, you know, in case you forgot).

Carmel wrote:Kelly, so you have no viable scientific journal entries to back up your claim because I will accept no less. I'm genuinely not interested in blatantly biased and substandard "works"(Sax).

I did notice

• "Six Degrees of Separation: what teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences". Educational Horizons, Spring 2006, pp. 190–200.
• "Maybe Men and Women Are Different". American Psychologist July (2002): 444-445.
• "Reclaiming Kindergarten: making kindergarten less harmful to boys". Psychology of Men and Masculinity 2 (2001): 3-12.

All peer-reviewed academic journals. If you want I can try to send you a copy of the American Psychologist article, although I haven't read it yet.

Diebert,
Yes, that's all well and good. I'm sure they're interesting articles in their own right, but do they support the counter claims Kelly referenced? Also, I'm not obsessed with gender issues, the way Kelly seems to be, so I'm not interested in reading volumes on it, nor going on a wild goose chase and filtering through a bunch of nonsense to find evidence. She should present it herself.

Carmel, to provide you with "viable scientific journal entries", I would simply cut and paste references from the page. But I have already typed it up in one convenient page for just such questions. Do have a look at the website.

You can even copy and paste the references to the viable scientific journal entries into Google, and see for yourself whether they are online or accessible at your closest relevant university library.


Kelly

...

That's exactly what I thought, Kelly. You have no viable evidence or data to verify your claims. I know, because I've researched this subject before and none exists which supports your specific counter claims (specifically IQ and academic scores)

I don't see the point in saying that a lack of scientific journals about the things Kelly talks about means that there is no evidence. There is a lack of scientific journals on the subject of apples being different from SCUD missiles. That doesn't mean that there is no evidence for that fact. Things have no truth contained in themselves, so you have to affirm the truth of something yourself for it to be true. If you choose not to do so, then no amount of evidence can force you to. Taking a horse close to water, and so on.