Appolinaria Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 She is aware that she can degrade, humiliate, torture, and kill innocent boys -- with impunity. So that is exactly what she does and the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans support her against the helpless boy. What are you even talking about? I'd like examples of where this has happened and statistics that show this is a widespread problem. 1
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Appolinaria, he doesn't need evidence, he has claims like these: That is what it is like to be a minor-girl. Obviously said from first-person experience, which is highly regarded in scientific thinking. But wait, I'm just saying that because I didn't grow out of my man-hating sadistic phase. Maybe you will see things better, as a compassionate child-loving adult woman. Does anyone else here notices how infuriating, women-degrading, and horrific this thread has degraded to? We're no longer discussing the potential mistreatment of boys (without evidence), we're now describing girls as brainless sadistic torturers, who's only grace is their ability to rear children which makes them somewhat compassionate when they miraculously "pop" into womanhood at 18. Yay for biology making a woman compassionate and protective of children by nature! It's not misogynistic at all. I don't think Green Xenon is even realizing what he's saying at this point, quite honestly. ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) You don't advocate he be raped by another drunken man to "learn his lesson". I don't but society does. So my AFFGRD simply stoops down to society's level. Are you really equating the "mistreatment" of boys (which, as I said before, can actually be viewed as gross mistreatment of GIRLS) to sex offender victimizing girls? No. I think the best way to proceed, on everyone's part, is for you to bring actual evidence that this "gross mistreatment" of boys, the way you say it, is actually grossly harmful to the boys. Quote from http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/14/world/fg-defile14 : ""These are nothing more than young people finding out about life," said Geoffrey Odaga of Save the Children, an advocacy group in Kampala that is preparing to challenge the constitutionality of the law by arguing it discriminates against boys." "As many as 2,000 boys, most of them poor or abandoned by their families, are facing defilement charges, according to estimates from the Legal Aid Clinic in Kampala, which represents children and the poor. Several hundred are being held in jail or juvenile detention facilities because they or their families cannot afford bail while they await trial." "Despite a law that prohibits sending children to adult prisons, some boys barely into their teens spend days, weeks or even months in local jails, mixed in with killers, rapists and other hard-core criminals. The boys are often subjected to beatings and rape by the older inmates, putting them at risk for AIDS." Quotes from http://ageofconsent.com/india.htm : "What is obvious is that whilst Indian law sees the use of young girls as illegal, that of young boys seems to leave them totally unbothered." "Then the case went to court in Tamil Nadu, where, rather than convict me, they wanted to arrest the ´victim´! The reason: according to the testimony of the person who filed the false case, I had sucked the penis of the boy. The boy therefore penetrated me, therefore in Indian law, the boy is the one who abused me ! I actually have the legal minutes stating this. I had to intervene so that they did not bother my young friend, who was being treated very badly indeed. Therefore there is no abuse or rape or anything punishable if the victim did not either suck you or get sodomised. There are no laws for ´pedophilia´, since there are no laws relating to age limits involving boys together. On the other hand they have the únnatural offense´law which states that one cannot sodomise anyone (penetrate) or have sex with an animal. Outside of these things, it would be very hard pushed to get any conviction. There is, therefore, only an anti-homosexuality law. My experience is big in this field, and I notice that all cases that come up are all blackmail cases, in which one complainant in one case gets a counter case against him accusing him of homosexuality. very rarely are there any cases of people being tried for homo sex in a case only involving that. No conviction can be obtained in India if no medical examination is carried out to prove that forceful penetration had occrued on the ´victim " Edited April 3, 2012 by Green Xenon
mooeypoo Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 I don't but society does. So my AFFGRD simply stoops down to society's level. I don't know what society you live in, but the western society definitely doesn't. The punishment for rape is not to be raped back, it's to be locked up and have treatment. The fact the system is imperfect doesn't mean the intent is what you propose. No. Reread what you wrote. It sure sounded like it. Quote from http://articles.lati...rld/fg-defile14 : [...] Quotes from http://ageofconsent.com/india.htm : [...] Awesome. Did you read my references at all? The ones from the NSF, peer reviewed? Even the ones I posted that were from the "popular" magazines, were popularized versions of peer reviewed articles. You have answered none of my questions. That said, let's go over your references: First Article http://articles.lati...rld/fg-defile14 LA Times Article titled: "Going All the Way -- to Jail" A statute in Uganda aims at men who prey on girls and makes such activity a capital crime. But it is teenage boys who are being ensnared. So you're giving a (non scientific) case-study from a single country that was recently known in the media for advocating for the capital punishment of homosexuals, about a misuse of a bad law. If you read the entire article, by the way, you can encounter this quote: By contrast, in the United States, age of consent under statutory rape laws varies between 14 and 18, regardless of gender. In some states, such as California, the offense is only a misdemeanor if consenting participants are close in age. (emphasis mine) Gee wizz. Equality? No! We asked you to provide references about how what YOU called the "preferential treatment of girls" (not pushing them as hard into science, not pushing them as hard into sports, being kinder to them, presumably, etc) is HAPPENING (which you haven't showed) and Producing a long-term psychological harm to young boys You have shown none of the above. Second Article Let's go to your second article. I will try to ignore the fact that the only links in the article are to "tripod.com". http://ageofconsent.com/india.htm This is a rather jumbled page that discusses a communication about the problems of age of consent in INDIA. India, as much as I love the culture, food and people, is not (to say the least) like the USA. So again you're bringing forth an article that discusses a single country's misuse of what, it seems, the rest of us deems as *unethical*. This does nothing to prove your point that boys are treated worse than girls in general, which is what you claim. It means boys are treated worse than girls in this particular case in India. That said, you really should start reading your own references. Just above the one you posted about the abuse of boys, there's one about abuse of girls too: When Mathura, a minor and orphan Harijan girl, filed a case against Ganpat, a police constable for raping her, little did she realize that she was undertaking an exercise in futility. As far as her innocent little mind worked, the facts of the case were very clear and indisputable. She had a boy friend and wanted to marry him. Her brother, who was against this marriage, lodged an abduction report with the police. Rather than do anything about the case, the police constable Ganpat saw his chance, summoned her to the police station at night, terrified her into submission and quenched his lust on her. Having thus satisfied his lust, he let her go. So it seems it's not a problem of boys being abused, but a problem of children being abused. Gee wizz. Equality? No! This is an exercise in futility. You are so closed minded to the idea that the world is not what exists in your own mind, that it doesn't seem to matter what anyone else says. You are making very very strong and infuriating points, Green Xenon. It's time you come out of your own perception and support them properly, or accept that you might have the wrong perception after all. Also, your tendency to skip claims that are uncomfortable for you to answer did not escape me (and I assume others). Intellectual honesty is a two-way street. ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) I don't know what society you live in, but the western society definitely doesn't. The punishment for rape is not to be raped back, it's to be locked up and have treatment. In men's-prisons and boys'-juvenile-detention-centers it is common for any inmate who is accused of abusing -- sexually or non-sexually -- a younger-minor-girl [falsely or not] to be himself-molested [and often tortured and killed] by stronger inmates when they find out what he is in for. If he survives, then -- regardless of his age at the time of the said offense -- anything & everything about him [who, what, when, where, why, and how] will be open to the public for the rest of his life. This means boys as young as 10 are often made to register as "sex offenders" and will likely be tortured and killed by lynch mobs before they are old enough to display secondary male gender characteristics [such as deep-voice, increased body hair, increased muscle-mass/strength, etc.]. To make matters worse, any of the boy's brothers [even if younger than him and totally-innocent] are shamed-to-death by society along with him. Most -- if not all -- cultures of the society-of-humans have advocated this retribution for any case [even if false] of any abuse [even if non-sexual] of a minor-girl [by a man or older-minor-boy]. Sadly, minor-boys -- especially in cultures that are impoverished, fundamentalist [such as the nazis, rednecks, white-superamcist.etc], and/or non-western -- are not given nearly as much [if any] protection or justice [against abusive men or older-boys] as girls are. In the case of a man-molesting-a-girl, society gives the victim extreme sympathy while wanting to burn the perpetrator alive. In the case a man-molesting-a-boy, society doesn't care to condemn the perpetrator but rather condemns the boy with transphobic/homosexual taunts such as "faggot", "sissy", "homo". In many parts of the world, a man who molests boys is not considered gay, but the boy-victims are because these boys are seen as playing the passive role and this passiveness is considered -- by irrational society -- to be feminine or unmasculine. This "femininity" in a male [regardless of his age] is considered [often falsely] a sign of homosexuality. For example, in Russia, the pedophile leader Putin molested a little boy by kissing the boy's stomach but no one cared. Just imagine the public outrage that would explode, if Putin did the same to a girl. If Putin kissed a little girl instead of boy, then he'd be burnt alive by a lynch mob. Also, Sai Baba is a pedophile priest in India who rapes boy-children but again no one cares. If Sai Baba abused girls instead of boys, he would likely die a horrible death in the hands of an angry lynch mob. In Pakistan [where conditions are even worse than in India], boys who are raped [by men or older boys] are often themselves jailed on charges of "sodomy" while the perpetrator is seen as "elite" and goes scott-free. In prison, these helpless boys subsequently face additional sexual violence from older male inmates. The best culture is the modern western culture of USA. This culture maybe bad enough [in terms of 'pro-girl sexism'], but in my opinion, cultures that are impoverished, fundamentalist [such as the nazis], and/or non-western are far worse because they encourage and tolerate 'pro-girl sexism' to the point where innocent pre-pubescent boys are heinously-mistreated by the macho men of evil society. Boys who live in the upper-class modern western culture of USA are blessed because they are safer [though not completely safe] from the horrors of 'pro-girl sexism' that terrorizes cultures that are destitute, non-western, and/or fanatical [such as that of radical Islam]. Just watch Slumdog Millionaire and you'll see the horrors boy-children face in the backward nation of India. I'm not racist, just honest. BTW, my ancestors are from India. India -- like most non-western, patriarchal, developing nations -- is polluted with intense 'pro-girl sexism'. As a hater of 'pro-girl sexism', I prefer matriarchal cultures over patriarchal ones. In matriarchal societies, boys are allowed to express distress and defend themselves against girl-bullies. In patriarchal societies, the macho men brutalize boys while pampering girls. The modern western society of USA is matriarchal while other cultures are mostly patriarchal. Bless the feminist movement which has made modern USA what it is. In addition, you're not taking into account the following: Non-sexual abuse of minor-girls -- by adult men or older-minor-boys -- is often misconstrued [by the men-of-the-society-of-humans] as sexual violence. Even non-abusive physical contact of minor-girls -- by adult men or older-minor-boys -- is also often misconstrued [by the men-of-the-society-of-humans] as sexual violence. Let me give you examples of non-abusive physical contact and how society's evil gender stereotypes influence such physical contact: In situations where invasive searches of children are mandated by law [such as in juvenile detention centers and in airports], society should stop demanding that girls be given the privilege of being searched by women. If boys are subjected to the discomfort of being searched by men, then girls deserve the same discomfort. Either that, or men should *not* be allowed to search children at all and all invasive searches should be performed solely by women regardless of the children's genders. There is nothing special about a child being a girl. Girls are no more precious than boys. If a child -- of any gender -- is subjected to physical contact by an adult, the child would rather be 'contacted' by a woman than a man. For any child, being searched by a man causes the child to feel a significant amount of distress, while being searched by a woman doesn't not cause much negative or positive emotions. As for invasive searches of adults [persons 18 or above], I agree with society that such searches should be performed by officers of the same gender because adult women feel especially uncomfortable if searched by men. In addition, in contact sports [such as martial-arts] which involve physical contact among adults and children, a male instructor should be allowed -- by society and the law -- to treat a girl the same way he is allowed to treat a boy, *without* facing bullshit accusations of "sexual harassment". BTW, here are more facts about the Gray Bar Hotel: The purpose of prison is to give pleasure to the sadists who get horny from observing the stronger mistreat the weaker. Prison is not meant to make an inmate a "better" person. Prison guards/wardens love to see the alpha inmate torture, mutilate and kill lower-ranking inmates. There is no such thing as "protective custody" because guards often intentionally leave the doors to p.c. open to allow these vulnerable inmates to be abused by the general population. It's bad enough in adult prisons. In juvenile detention centers, it is much worse with 17-year-olds bullying and abusing 10-year-olds. In both adult prisons and juvenile detention center, the general population has a strict code of "don't mess with girls" but it's okay to sexually-assault and kill boys. In juvenile jails, there are plenty cases of strong adolescent boys [who look like and sound like adult men] sexually-assaulting and killing pre-pubescent boys just for sick pleasure. The guards also encourage such activity. Even if juvenile halls were co-ed, boys would still not lay a finger on girls because mistreating girls is seen -- by the macho "prison culture" -- as being 'unmanly'. The general populations of prisons -- both adult and juvenile -- are filled with evil macho men who are extremely protective of girl-children but gain cold-hearted pleasure and dark humor from mistreating boy-children. As a result, I hate the general populations of prisons and the corrupt guards/wardens who run these pens. Just how do I know what would happen if prisons housed inmates of all genders and age groups? That is because it is rather simple to correctly-guess the behavior of inmates in hypothetical housing situations. On a side note: Remember the Michael Jackson child molestation case? The accuser's so-called "friends" bullied him mercilessly, often pointing fingers and saying "that's the kid who got raped by Michael Jackson". If the accuser were a girl, her peers would show her a lot more sympathy and Jackson would be lynched -- trial or no trial. After being accused -- wrongly or not -- of child sex abuse, Jackson continued to remain rather popular. This is because Jackson was accused of molesting boys, not girls. If he were accused of molesting girls -- even falsely -- he would lose all his popularity and likely be burnt alive by angry inmates in jail. Edited April 4, 2012 by Green Xenon
mooeypoo Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 The fact that there are rapes in prison is not the same as to say that a rapist's punishment in society is to be raped back. If you don't understand the distinction, we have a much bigger problem here than just difference of opinion. But that's also besides the point. It was a small point that was made, on the outskirts of the scope of the argument. You are once again going besides the point, ignoring the points I and others have made to you. You're either here to debate, or you are here to stomp your feet in the ground. The latter won't last much. I've analyzed the "evidence" you presented and showed you how you either didn't read them well, or they're not sufficient to support your claims. This is the time for you to bring actual research evidence to the table rather than once again ranting about your own personal beliefs. We don't do guesses here -- especially when your latest guesses were shown to be absolutely utterly moot. Stop guessing, then. Please. We're a science forum, you make a claim you insist is true, you need to show it's supported by evidence. Stop preaching, start participating in the discussion. ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If there are such things as reincarnation and karma, I must have done something really bad in my previous life. In this life I'm made to pay off that "debt". Either one of the following happened in my previous incarnation: 1. I was a wicked macho man who was very popular and always got his way. I treated girls better than boys. I laughed at the suffering of boys when they showed resentment against the horrific "pro-girl sexism". I assisted girls in mistreating boys. I was the very type of cold-hearted sadist that I hate in my current incarnation. 2. I was female and aware of "pro-girl sexism". As a minor-girl, I was a 5-letter-B-word. I was very cruel to boys. I beat them up, tortured, and humiliated them. Whenever any boy tried to defend himself against against me, I would cry " rape" and society would torture and kill the boy for me. I would laugh sadistically as I observed such a boy suffer under societal-stress. In either case, I perpetrated "pro-girl sexism" in my previous incarnation. In my present life, some higher-power-of-morality wants me to feel the pain I inflicted on others in my previous life.
immortal Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If there are such things as reincarnation and karma, I must have done something really bad in my previous life. In this life I'm made to pay off that "debt". We cannot really have a fruitful discussion based on such assumptions.
Xittenn Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Green Xenon, if polled how many men do you think would vote that they felt victim of pro-girl sexism as children? I do somewhat agree with Moo in that girls are reared to bread and not succeed, but at the same time I think a lot of women are quite content in a mid-ground position having children and adopting a socially beneficial role as well--hold the glory. And not that there should be discrimination in this sense, just that girls are going to have to take some initiative and more than just a handful of them--again not that this should be necessary, to each their own merit. But honestly, if a man wants to be treated tenderly they often take on a role that will put them there like in art and literature, or in hairdressing--to be how you say that word _______. Men are only really forced into the crappy situations that you've elucidated to given poverty, with exception to acts of sexual perversion of which both sexes are equally susceptible. But guess what, so are women, their jobs given poverty are very much on par with men in the same bracket. And now we are discussing children here. Brackets are probably the most determining factor of the equation. In low brackets girls are made to clean the house and boys are made to find crappy jobs that will make them money. In high brackets girls must go through extremes in etiquette training as well as pursue a professional level career i.e. teaching, nursing . . . . Boys in the high end brackets must strive to become doctors, lawyers, and so on. . . Whether or not the allocation of human resources based on sex is appropriate, each faces their own challenges equally. Few girls find their way through childhood feeling like princesses! What are you on about?
Appolinaria Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If there are such things as reincarnation and karma, I must have done something really bad in my previous life. In this life I'm made to pay off that "debt". Either one of the following happened in my previous incarnation: 1. I was a wicked macho man who was very popular and always got his way. I treated girls better than boys. I laughed at the suffering of boys when they showed resentment against the horrific "pro-girl sexism". I assisted girls in mistreating boys. I was the very type of cold-hearted sadist that I hate in my current incarnation. 2. I was female and aware of "pro-girl sexism". As a minor-girl, I was a 5-letter-B-word. I was very cruel to boys. I beat them up, tortured, and humiliated them. Whenever any boy tried to defend himself against against me, I would cry " rape" and society would torture and kill the boy for me. I would laugh sadistically as I observed such a boy suffer under societal-stress. In either case, I perpetrated "pro-girl sexism" in my previous incarnation. In my present life, some higher-power-of-morality wants me to feel the pain I inflicted on others in my previous life. I don't think you should drive yourself crazy, thinking you're being punished for what you did in past lives. You could just be using it as an explanation for your suffering. Is that really rational? It may just be random, that you suffer as you do, but your mind looks for a reason "why" and makes things up. We see this in animals, like the Pigeon experiment. (I saw this from one of Schrodinger's Hat's posts, I think >.< ) Green Xenon I'm just curious, you don't have to answer these :S 1. What is your punishment? 2. What "pain", that has to do with pro-girl sexism, are you talking about? 3. Were you bullied by little girls as a child? 4. Did older males often treat little girls better than you when you were a child? 5. Do you feel like you deserved more compassion, tenderness, etc. as a child? 6. Were you jealous of how easy little girls had it when you were little? 7. Did you feel more sensitive than other boys or the same? 8. What is your family life like?
Green Xenon Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) 1. What is your punishment? 2. What "pain", that has to do with pro-girl sexism, are you talking about? 3. Were you bullied by little girls as a child? 4. Did older males often treat little girls better than you when you were a child? 5. Do you feel like you deserved more compassion, tenderness, etc. as a child? 6. Were you jealous of how easy little girls had it when you were little? 7. Did you feel more sensitive than other boys or the same? 8. What is your family life like? I will answer the questions in the order they were asked: 1. Feeling the pain suffered by victims of "pro-girl sexism" 2. The physical and psychological suffering caused by "pro-girl sexism" 3. Yes 4. Yes, and not just me. This happens all around the world and has been ever since humans formed their disgusting society. 5. Yes 6. Very much so 7. Probably more but I'm not sure 8. Well-to-do family with a younger brother. Thankfully no younger-sisters below 18. Edited April 5, 2012 by Green Xenon
Green Xenon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) I would like to post a poll regarding a question relevant to this thread but the forum's configuration does not enable polls on messages that are not new. So I can't post the poll. Anyways, here is the question: Should adults and minors -- of any gender -- treat minors in a genderless manner? I vote "yes" because I don't like "pro-girl sexism". Adult = human who is 18 years of age or older Minor = human who is below 18 years of age Black civil rights leaders did not advocate forcibly infecting whites with a disease causing racial colorblindness, or with a disease causing them to treat whites as poorly as they treated blacks; they sought to build a society that accepted all races as equals. Speaking of racism, the British used to rule Hong Kong. When HK was under British rule, did British men/boys ever publicly-mistreat Chinese girls -- in ways that are so heinous that they are not appropriate for discussion -- and get away with such mistreatment even if their fellow British male citizens found out about it? Edited April 6, 2012 by Green Xenon
Joatmon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 I imagine young people between the onset of puberty and 18 years of age would insist for themselves that they were not genderless! To deny them this realisation would be to rob them of part of their natural development (IMO).
Green Xenon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 I imagine young people between the onset of puberty and 18 years of age would insist for themselves that they were not genderless! To deny them this realisation would be to rob them of part of their natural development (IMO). I disagree because gender is one of the many evil societal-constructs -- created by macho men -- to oppress minor-boys while deferring to minor-girls. There is nothing innate or natural about gender. It is simply a form of unfair discrimination perpetrated by the cold-hearted society-of-humans.
Joatmon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 I disagree because gender is one of the many evil societal-constructs -- created by macho men -- to oppress minor-boys while deferring to minor-girls. There is nothing innate or natural about gender. It is simply a form of unfair discrimination perpetrated by the cold-hearted society-of-humans. Are you saying that gender and sexual awareness are two different and quite separate things? Are you saying that unless influenced by older people most boys of about 16 would not tend to look at girls of about the same age (and fantasize about possibilities) with a lot more interest than they do other boys? Or are you saying this sexual awareness has nothing to do with gender? I see sexual awareness as an important component of gender identity and something that develops naturally.
Green Xenon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Are you saying that gender and sexual awareness are two different and quite separate things? Are you saying that unless influenced by older people most boys of about 16 would not tend to look at girls of about the same age (and fantasize about possibilities) with a lot more interest than they do other boys? Or are you saying this sexual awareness has nothing to do with gender? I see sexual awareness as an important component of gender identity and something that develops naturally. Gender and sexuality are two totally-different entities.
Joatmon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Gender and sexuality are two totally-different entities. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.
Green Xenon Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 I guess we shall have to agree to disagree. No problem. I still think minors should be treated -- by adults and other minors -- in a genderless manner. This is because, in all fairness, girl-children don't deserve to be treated [by men and older-boys] better than boy-children if such preferential-treatment is provided [by these men/older-boys] solely on the basis on gender. I don't care if women treat girls better than boys because women rarely treat children based on gender. Women usually treat children in a genderless manner. It's the men who are the problem. Men treat girls better than boys, because these men fear being falsely-accused -- by the evil men-of-the-society-of-humans -- of sexually-harassing girls.
hypervalent_iodine Posted April 7, 2012 Posted April 7, 2012 ! Moderator Note Green Xenon,We've been pretty lenient with you to date, but the soap boxing really has to stop. If you have actual literature or some form of actual evidence aside from your own opinion to support your assertions, then bring them to this thread and discuss them. Please do not respond to this mod note.
mooeypoo Posted April 9, 2012 Author Posted April 9, 2012 You clearly don't care what anyone else thinks, Green Xenon, and worse, you clearly don't care about evidence. All you do is stomp your feet in the ground to insist you're right regardless of evidence. Did you even read the papers we posted? when you give a generalized answer about society and how it operates, do you have evidence to back your comments or is it just out of your rear orifice? When you claim that X does lasting damage, you need to back it up. You were asked to do this not once, not twice, and not three times. Guess what? You saying X does not make X true no matter how much you want to believe it, especially when *counter* evidence are shown. Ignoring counter-evidence will not make them disappear. You ignoring it does not go unnoticed; it's clear you either have no evidence, or you don't give a rat's tail about whether or not what you claim is real or not. You still answer without evidence, and you still skip questions and points that you can't deal with. That's not a good recipe for convincing anyone, it's not debating scientifically (which is what we're here for) and it's against the etiquette and rules. ~mooey
Fuzzwood Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Dude, it's called hormones. You bet that is both natural and gender induced.
mooeypoo Posted April 9, 2012 Author Posted April 9, 2012 I disagree because gender is one of the many evil societal-constructs -- created by macho men -- to oppress minor-boys while deferring to minor-girls. There is nothing innate or natural about gender. It is simply a form of unfair discrimination perpetrated by the cold-hearted society-of-humans. Of course you will go against any and all research on the matter of gender at a young age without even bothering to read it. When a person insists that gravity doesn't exit, you start by explaining it, and then you continue by asking how they don't fall off the earth, but when they keep insisting gravity is bunk despite clear evidence, you mark them as irrelevant, and stop arguing. You're getting to that stage, Green Xenon. Well done. You ignore all actual proper evidence that girls aren't being treated better than boys, so your insistence that they're being cuddled and treated preferentially should come from personal experience, clearly. The funny thing is that many women's rights groups who actively work for equality do not make this stupid claim that there's no "innate difference" of genders. They promote equality, especially in a young age. Which, btw, can be argued that the treatment of the genders is unequal *the other way around* (against girls), as I've shown with (NOES!) evidence. Yeah, that thing that separates myth from reality. So either you don't care about evidence, or you purposefully ignore me because I have a vagina instead of a penis, which apparently makes me a sadistic anti-boy bitch until I'm 18. Can't blame ya'. Arguing there's no innate gender is not just ridiculous, it's psychologically and medically bunk. There is clear evidence that show that while gender identity is not always simply defined (like in the case of transgendered), it absolutely is innate, affects the brain (hormones, ever heard of those? they're actually affecting things in the body other than boobs, who'da figured) the body and the mind. The fact there's an innate difference doesn't mean there shouldn't be equality -- but if you want equality, you can't go around claiming idiotic unsupported claims you take out of your rear orifice. You either want to fix things in reality, or you want to whine about your own perception of it regardless of evidence. You can't have both. Read the literature before you make stupid claims. You know, the one that actual scientists and professionals have spent years researching, peer-reviewing, observing, and making distinctions and predictions and conclusions upon. Are you even reading yourself at all anymore, or are you so off your rocker you just post blindly? ~mooey Studies in gender identity: http://scienceaid.co...biological.html This is very often used as the definition of male and female and plays a huge role in determining the physical characteristics that you would associate with males and females. However, if chromosomes determine gender, what happens to your gender if does not follow the typical pattern. In the table we will look at two different conditions resulting from atypical chromosomes. [...] The truth of the situation is very different to what Money and Erhardt portrayed it as. The child in this study made their idenitity public many years later and said he had never felt like a girl and always displayed male characteristics; this is backed up by school reports. When he discovered what had happened at 12 he refused to take hormones and so had a normal male puberty and lived his life as male. He then married and lives as a man and in 2004 he, tragically, killed himself. This study, then infact shows that biological factors are more important, because the child had the gender identity of a boy (in line with the genetics) despite the parents doing their best to socialize the child into being a girl. And you should order this paper, if you actually care: http://psycnet.apa.o.../2004-16374-000 Meta Analysis of psychology of gender research (it's a bit old, and it's a META analysis, but it's a decent overview of the research done at least a couple of decades ago) http://www.jstor.org...sid=56011288343 http://onlinelibrary...CO;2-O/abstract This study explored differences in levels of anti-egalitarianism and social dominance orientation among groups with different social status, and examined the degree to which these differences in anti-egalitarianism varied across a number of situational and contextual factors. Consistent with both the cultural deterministic (CD) and social dominance (SD) paradigms, when defining social status as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or ‘race’, differences in anti-egalitarianism between members of high- and low-status groups were found to be contingent upon a range of contextual and situational factors, such as the degree to which the two groups varied in social status. However, consistent with the SD perspective and the invariance hypothesis, the data also showed that males were more anti-egalitarian than females, and that this male/female difference in social and group dominance orientation tended to be largely invariant across cultural, situational, and contextual boundaries. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. And lastly, if you actually care to read what proper evidence shows about gender, here's another very interesting study: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676 Human differentiation on the basis of gender is a fundamental phenomenon that affects virtually every aspect of people's daily lives. This article presents the social cognitive theory of gender role development and functioning. It specifies how gender conceptions are constructed from the complex mix of experiences and how they operate in concert with motivational and self-regulatory mechanisms to guide gender-linked conduct throughout the life course. The theory integrates psychological and sociostructural determinants within a unified conceptual structure. In this theoretical perspective, gender conceptions and roles are the product of a broad network of social influences operating interdependently in a variety of societal subsystems. Human evolution provides bodily structures and biological potentialities that permit a range of possibilities rather than dictate a fixed type of gender differentiation. People contribute to their self-development and bring about social changes that define and structure gender relationships through their agentic actions within the interrelated systems of influence. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved) But I am going to start taking bets on the odds of you actually reading any of those, or any of the evidence and points I made a couple of posts ago. Might make me rich. ~mooey
Green Xenon Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I now have a hypothetical question the relates somewhat to this thread. I hope no one ignores it. Please answer it. The question involves computers, data remanence, and the law. Let's say I go onto ICQ chat rooms and vent my extreme dislike of the gender-discrimination I spoke of in this thread. I get into obscene detail over how I want to retaliate against society. However, all my activities are text-only and do NOT involve any "criminal threats". Have I violated any law? If so, does the punishment include incarceration? If so, is there a "name and shame" policy after my release? Once again, none of my activities involve ANY threats. Nor do they involve anything other than text. In addition, my text is in the entire chat ROOM -- in other words, I don't send PMs or IMs to N E 1. Let's say, I post my rants into the ICQ chat room and the readers are very disturbed and offended by my disgusting messages. They report me to authorities. Will I pay a visit to the grey-bar-hotel, even though my activities are free of threats, PMs, IMs, & free of anything other than plain text? Why do I ask? I become delirious and psychologically-dissociate whenever the following facts are reinforced to me: 1. Society perpetrates the gender discrimination I spoke of earlier in this thread. 2. All cultures of society [east and west] have perpetrated this horrific prejudice ever since humans formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors. 3. There is nothing I can do to eliminate -- or even decrease the intensity of -- this vile sexism. Whenever the above 3 facts are reinforced to me, I feel like getting on a computer and going on the aforementioned chat rooms and psychologically-punishing society with my rants. As angry as I may get, I will never cause physical harm to N E 1 or N E thing. Nor will I ever threaten to cause such harm. At worst, I will vent my spleen on chat rooms thereby causing society to want to burn me alive. Fair is fair. Society upsets me by perpetrating the aforementioned sexism and making me unable to change that sexism. I fight back by upsetting society via my perverse chat room activities and wish to be untraceable. Can you blame me? Now here is my question about data remanence. Let's I get paranoid... ... I remove the HDD from my computer and vaporize its platters and other storage components using and oxyacetylene torch ... ... will my computer still contain viable traces of my chat room activities? I ask because of what I read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence#Data_in_RAM I'm now daydreaming of a form of Dynamic Volatile RAM in which ALL traces of data [even at the most elementary physical level] will completely-disappear sooner than a 100th-of-a-second after the power is cut off even if the temperature of the RAM device and the rest of the environment is as low as absolute-zero. Is such RAM equipment possible, given the state of today's technology? If so, I'd like to use it as a substitute for and HDD and use an OS that does not require Non-Volatile RAM to operate. Windows OSes are out of the question, since they are programmed to require NVRAM. Edited June 20, 2012 by Green Xenon -2
swansont Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 ! Moderator Note Green Xenon, I don't think the forum can give you the help you need. This is not a substitute for professional counseling of either the mental health or legal variety. You need to seek this out. We are also not going to be a platform for expressing your views any longer. This has gone on too long. Closed.
Recommended Posts