Originally Posted by Odin

I was speaking more about the tone of his post then the factual content. Though his use of evo-psych arguments are disturbing in any case, my selfish genes do not define right and wrong, they can go jump in a lake all I care.

This IS the internet, and you might run in trouble deciphering tone. But I agree that sociobiology is a pseudo-deterministic, culturally-influenced, status quo machine.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was speaking more about the tone of his post then the factual content. Though his use of evo-psych arguments are disturbing in any case, my selfish genes do not define right and wrong, they can go jump in a lake all I care.

Except that your entire psychology is informed by your biology. Tabula rasa arguments for the infinite plasticity of the human organism have been pretty thoroughly demolished in the past 40 years. This is ideologically inconvenient for proponents of social engineering, however, as it tends to disqualify the perfectibility of man, which has been a central conceit of Western thought since at least the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Odin

Looks like something some right-wing ditto-head would say "black welfare queens with 5 kids in a cadillac blah blah blah...".

Nice of you to drag race into the discussion, since I never once commented on it. Given that the population of the U.S. is still majority white by a sizable margin, it stands to reason that most single mothers in this country are white. Also, class isn't a consideration. The courts favor women, regardless of their socioeconomic background. Indeed, upper class women are more likely to divorce than lower because they stand to gain more from the proceedings and are better able to provide for their children regardless. Single-motherhood among minorities is more a function of disproportionately high incarceration rates for black and hispanic males.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That article consists of nothing more than a series of strawmen (as is far-too-common among antifeminist blowhards), with some offensiveness to boot. I hope you didn't write it.

I did not, but neither do I agree with your analysis. Feminism, in my opinion, is irredeemably toxic because it rejects the complementarity of the sexes for an idealized equality, which has come to be indiscernible from identity, or oneness. Feminists do not, in my experience, seriously argue for the equal status of the feminine with the masculine, but with the melding of the feminine into the masculine, to arrive at a diluted androgyne that offends both sexes. This can be seen in everything from the medication of young boys in order to suppress their natural aggressiveness and physicality to the injection of subliminal anxiety into every adult relationship because of the non-zero probability of a spat leading to false accusations of sexual assault or domestic abuse.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This IS the internet, and you might run in trouble deciphering tone. But I agree that sociobiology is a pseudo-deterministic, culturally-influenced, status quo machine.

Fascinating. If evolutionary science can be said to have a lesson embedded in it at all, it is that everything is contingent, nothing lasts forever. Nature tries everything, and whatever sticks this round gets recycled in the next, until it no longer sticks, at which point it is discarded. How is the status quo benefited by a science of flux?

Originally Posted by Odin

A misogynistic anarchist. How oxymoronic.

Since this is probably going to turn into a round of ad homs fairly soon, here is my reply to this cheap, cheap shot from Odin: I am not a misogynist. Neither am I homosexual, but my fervent insistence of this fact to the bully on my bus in the 8th grade did nothing to discourage him from shouting "faggot" and pummeling me at random intervals, so I don't expect my denial to have any greater impact here.

I do believe that men and women are fundamentally different (for reasons both physical and metaphysical), and that feminists seek to deny this difference, in the mistaken belief that human beings are blank slates that can be shaped into whatever form they desire. I furthermore believe that the family courts unjustly privilege women. I do not think women are evil for exploiting this skewed system to their advantage. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance, to seek the greatest reward for the least amount of effort, and that is what the courts offer. But neither do I excuse such behavior. I understand that this puts me in the position of criticizing an historically oppressed "minority" (I put the word in quotes, since women are numerically a slight majority of the population), but that has never dissuaded me from calling shenanigans in the past. I know how I personally feel about women (I am quite fond of them, in general), and that is sufficient for me. The rest of you can believe whatever you like. I do not need to be popular to be right.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Feminism, in my opinion, is irredeemably toxic because it rejects the complementarity of the sexes for an idealized equality, which has come to be indiscernible from identity, or oneness.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Are you suggesting that feminism is inherently collectivist?

Feminists do not, in my experience, seriously argue for the equal status of the feminine with the masculine, but with the melding of the feminine into the masculine, to arrive at a diluted androgyne that offends both sexes.

Uh, well as one who does not display an overall character that may be described as particularly masculine nor feminine, I express puzzlement at your depiction of the androgynous personality as offensive. Of course, most feminists don't really assert that some combination of masculinity and femininity is the golden mean between two vices. I'm not sure what your experience is, but by my understanding, it's that there are certain traits commonly associated with the two genders that ought to be cast off. I don't think that this is an immodest claim: feminists just tend to differ with non-feminists on the degree, but it's not enough to suggest that anyone displaying a preference for the personalities associated with each gender are acting rightly or wrongly. I personally know feminists who lean to either side, and the attitude is simply "whatever."

This can be seen in everything from the medication of young boys in order to suppress their natural aggressiveness and physicality to the injection of subliminal anxiety into every adult relationship because of the non-zero probability of a spat leading to false accusations of sexual assault or domestic abuse.

Well aggressiveness is a vice, and I personally hate it when I, or others, display it. (Not that I support modern medication standards.)

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Fascinating. If evolutionary science can be said to have a lesson embedded in it at all, it is that everything is contingent, nothing lasts forever. Nature tries everything, and whatever sticks this round gets recycled in the next, until it no longer sticks, at which point it is discarded. How is the status quo benefited by a science of flux?

I'm not talking about a biological status quo (such a thing would be quite absurd), but an institutional one. I wish you wouldn't be outright dismissive; there are good arguments made on both sides by smart people. I have both scientific and philosophical problems with the premises of sociobiology, but it's getting late now, so I'll elaborate tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

It's interesting how you're viewing acceptability solely through the lens of reproduction since that lens is precisely the one that causes widespread disrespect for homosexuals. You also (amazingly!) point out that pedophilia is not outright objectionable when viewing sexual mores through this lens. This only reinforces to me the superiority of consent as the proper determinant of whether sexual behavior is acceptable.

I found one possible exception: survival of the species. I hardly expect such a circumstance to arise.

Ah, but gross inequality of partners is the norm in traditional marriage. Is the stay-at-home mom inherently unloved? Again, consent seems a superior criteria here.

Difference and inequality are very different things.

Why would such a thing be necessary to make polygamy tolerable? Perhaps it's because you're assuming sexually exclusive marriages? If marriages are predominantly open, then the social problem of "maldistribution of nookie" never occurs.

The idea of some millionaire having a harem that implies the frustration of the poor seems awful.

Probably, I was just pointing out how your evaluation of such things bears striking similarities to JPTs which you perhaps weren't consciously aware of.

We rely heavily upon the concept of disgust, without which judgment is impossible.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'm not quite sure what this means. Are you suggesting that feminism is inherently collectivist?

To complement means to supply another's lack. Men and women are complementary; we each supply what the other lacks. Feminists seem to reject this complementarity in favor of equality, which does not mean equity in the sense that they use it, but identity or sameness. That is, most modern feminists speak and act as if they believe there is literally no fundamental difference between men and women. That we are all just interchangeable parts in a great Cartesian world-machine. This leads to absurd conclusions about organic sex roles, which are treated not as adaptive responses to real environmental pressures, but mere contrivances of "patriarchy" designed to systematically oppress women.

Uh, well as one who does not display an overall character that may be described as particularly masculine nor feminine, I express puzzlement at your depiction of the androgynous personality as offensive.

Women are not normally attracted to effeminate men, and men are not normally attracted to masculine women. This has been confirmed by studies of sexual attraction as it relates to everything from facial symmetry and bust-waist-hip ratios to the presence of facial hair, body odor, demonstrations of assertiveness and strength, etc. These are quantifiable physical characteristics and behaviors that bridge the entire species, not merely cultural idiosyncracies. Yes, culture can decide where in a range of viable configurations preferences fall, but it cannot alter the boundaries of what is humanly possible. Culture cannot, for example, normalize zoophilia without, at the very least, undermining the ability of a populace to reproduce itself.

Of course, most feminists don't really assert that some combination of masculinity and femininity is the golden mean between two vices. I'm not sure what your experience is, but by my understanding, it's that there are certain traits commonly associated with the two genders that ought to be cast off.

Gender is a grammatical construction. Sex is biological. It is rooted in the physical. This gives rise to certain behavioral differences that cannot be eliminated through clever rhetorical gymnastics or legislation designed to coerce a certain set of attitudes. Injustice is injustice regardless of the identity of the oppressed. If feminism had merely confined itself to pointing out unevenly applied principles of justice and equity and working to rectify the glaring inconsistencies, it would be a positive force in the world, but it long ago transgressed this role and became a tool for the radical re-engineering of society. And so I cannot embrace the movement despite my sympathy with its initial aims. Human beings are not guinea pigs for utopian idealists to experiment upon.

Well aggressiveness is a vice, and I personally hate it when I, or others, display it. (Not that I support modern medication standards.)

There is nothing wrong with aggression. A man who vigorously attacks a burglar in his home is not commiting a crime. A boy who charges impetuously over a hill to see what lies beyond is being aggressive, but he is not doing anything wrong. Aggression is built in to the animal kingdom, and violence is an unavoidable fact of life. It is only when aggression leads to coercion that it becomes a vice.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'm not talking about a biological status quo (such a thing would be quite absurd), but an institutional one. I wish you wouldn't be outright dismissive; there are good arguments made on both sides by smart people. I have both scientific and philosophical problems with the premises of sociobiology, but it's getting late now, so I'll elaborate tomorrow.

I know what you were talking about, and I meant an institutional status quo. As I see it, evolutionary science has diverged substantially from the crude Darwinism that informed the heinous social theories of men like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton. I see nothing about evolutionary psychology or sociobiology that implies a certain immutable social order; quite the contrary. There are, however, costs to any cultural realignment, because human beings are not -- contrary to utopian musings -- infinitely malleable. The cost of female sexual liberation in the contemporary West is a masculine backlash against a dysfunctional legal framework that severely discounts the reproductive interests of men. This is simple cause and effect. If A, then B. To expect anything else is madness.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I do believe that men and women are fundamentally different (for reasons both physical and metaphysical), and that feminists seek to deny this difference, in the mistaken belief that human beings are blank slates that can be shaped into whatever form they desire.

I do not deny the biological differences between men and women. I do believe that women have been unjustly discriminated against. It is outrageous that we were not allowed to vote in this country until 1920. It is outrageous that we were not allowed to dress the way we wanted to, nor to pursue careers that we wanted to, simply because we were perceived as threats to men, or at least to some perverted religious ideology that tried to keep us out of positions of real power and responsibility.

I furthermore believe that the family courts unjustly privilege women. I do not think women are evil for exploiting this skewed system to their advantage. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance, to seek the greatest reward for the least amount of effort, and that is what the courts offer. But neither do I excuse such behavior. I understand that this puts me in the position of criticizing an historically oppressed "minority" (I put the word in quotes, since women are numerically a slight majority of the population), but that has never dissuaded me from calling shenanigans in the past. I know how I personally feel about women (I am quite fond of them, in general), and that is sufficient for me. The rest of you can believe whatever you like. I do not need to be popular to be right.

As a feminist, I believe in the moral equality of men and women -- thus, women should not be "privileged" in such matters and courts should not be biased against men as you describe. If you are blaming "feminism" for this, I would argue that the blame falls only on a subset of feminism (those few who want to have it both ways). I heartily reject that kind of thinking and encourage my sisters to take their lumps like adults. Taking responsibility for your own screw-ups shows you've arrived.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

To complement means to supply another's lack. Men and women are complementary; we each supply what the other lacks. Feminists seem to reject this complementarity in favor of equality, which does not mean equity in the sense that they use it, but identity or sameness. That is, most modern feminists speak and act as if they believe there is literally no fundamental difference between men and women. That we are all just interchangeable parts in a great Cartesian world-machine. This leads to absurd conclusions about organic sex roles, which are treated not as adaptive responses to real environmental pressures, but mere contrivances of "patriarchy" designed to systematically oppress women.

Jesus, Arkham, this kind of shit went out years ago.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was speaking more about the tone of his post then the factual content. Though his use of evo-psych arguments are disturbing in any case, my selfish genes do not define right and wrong, they can go jump in a lake all I care.

Furthermore, there are many, many people who voluntarily choose to raise other people's biological children through adoption or step-parenting. In those cases, I believe they don't really give a crap about genetics. And God bless them all, I say.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

One of the greatest rhetorical frames ever established in the popular consciousness is the feminist equation of anti-feminism with misogyny. It's the perfect armature for a class of professional victims. No criticism whatsoever can be leveled against the class without eliciting accusations of repression. It's brilliant.

Well, if one defines feminism in that way, of course it's self-contradictory. You can't demand equal rights if you're going to claim victimhood. What you need to do is reassert your natural human rights and expect that you will be listened to with respect. The woman's movement had to work a long time to get that far, and unfortunately some elements of it got sidetracked into victim ideology.

I, for one, am not going to be victimized by the whiners OR marginalized by anyone who sees feminism through a too-narrow lens.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

To complement means to supply another's lack. Men and women are complementary; we each supply what the other lacks.

What do men lack that women have, and vice versa? I'm not talking about anatomical and physiological differences here.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Jesus, Arkham, this kind of shit went out years ago.

A rather expansive comment. What "shit" specifically? You could be taken in this instance to mean: a) male-female complementarity; b) feminist rejection of the same in favor of male-female interchangeability; c) the conclusions concerning "patriarchy" that result from this rejection.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What do men lack that women have, and vice versa? I'm not talking about anatomical and physiological differences here.

There are psychological differences inextricable from the biological ones, but the question is a red herring. I suspect you are trying to bate me into making some claim of masculine superiority, which I will not do. Neither sex is superior, but there is a division of labor between the sexes based on the comparative advantages of men and women at specific tasks, and that is not merely the fabrication of some nebulous "patriarchy".

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

A rather expansive comment. What "shit" specifically? You could be taken in this instance to mean: a) male-female complementarity; b) feminist rejection of the same in favor of male-female interchangeability; c) the conclusions concerning "patriarchy" that result from this rejection.

b) mostly.

The idea of 100% interchangeability is absurd on its face.

Misogyny: A Feminist Production

Not my words, but why reinvent the wheel? I expect certain persons will reject the arguments contained in this article out of hand, probably without even reading beyond the first few paragraphs. But the author makes an undeniable point: hostility breeds recrimination. One cannot attack a class of persons without eliciting a response in kind.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

b) mostly.

The idea of 100% interchangeability is absurd on its face.

Since when has the absurdity of an idea ever kept people from expressing it?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

There are psychological differences inextricable from the biological ones, but the question is a red herring. I suspect you are trying to bate me into making some claim of masculine superiority, which I will not do.

No, I want you to back up your claim with specifics. What are these psychological differences?

Aggression simply makes a pathology (greed, selfishness, hostility, bad driving) all the more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Misogyny: A Feminist Production

Not my words, but why reinvent the wheel? I expect certain persons will reject the arguments contained in this article out of hand, probably without even reading beyond the first few paragraphs. But the author makes an undeniable point: hostility breeds recrimination. One cannot attack a class of persons without eliciting a response in kind.

Heh.

misogynist, n. a person who believes that women are responsible adults, and holds them accountable when they fail to act so.

Oh, bingo! Then call me a misogynist by that guy's definition. LMAO.

FWIW, Arkham, I don't think you're a misogynist, but I do think you're stuck in a few misconceptions.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Aggression simply makes a pathology (greed, selfishness, hostility, bad driving) all the more dangerous.

True enough, but as Arkham said earlier, it does have value as a survival mechanism. We don't want a society of psychologically castrated men.