Yeah, sarcasm's OK in the right context, I guess, although it's not my preferred form of critique or humour. :)

I think you will find that people like TimeLine do not find it at all fun having others disagree with them. For some it's easier to always think inside the box and not out. Then again, I wonder why these sorts of people are on an internet forum, the function of which is to provide an arena for strangers to debate reasonably, but crankily. Maybe it's just the, "I like to hear myself talk" sort of thing. — Heister Eggcart

In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it.

In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it. — T Clark

I thought it was fun? I said that this thread is gender-bias and I got the following:

TimeLine's posts always read like they were generated — Agustino

I just imagine her smoking a truckload of hashish after getting off work in Jordan or wherever she is. — Heister Eggcart

it's just that arrogance and pride blind her from being more compassionate. — Agustino

A fittingly vacuous response from a typically stupid poster. — Heister Eggcart

As mentioned, these threads merely expose the type of person the authors are as they attempt to answer it, and why would anyone want to respond to such people is beyond me.

In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it. — T Clark

I think proper debate and discussion always entails a good measure of crankiness, otherwise there's no passion or fervor.

I thought it was fun? I said that this thread is gender-bias and I got the following: — TimeLine

That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you?

Life and statements about it extend beyond whether anyone defends them. Indeed, whether someone choses to defend a statement or not has nothing to do with its truth.

The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed.

So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy .

If we are interested in what is true, an absence of an argument or further argumentation is not enough to dismiss any claim. Who knows what reasoning or evidence might be unsaid? To reject a claim, we must actually know it's wrong . It's never enough to just say: "They didn't argue enough."

The sexist positions displayed in this thread are still harmful. If someone rejects engaging a position they disagree with in argument, it doesn't mean they cannot object to it. Nor does it mean their objection is wrong or unjustified. Fighting is not a measure or truth.

That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you? — Heister Eggcart

Are you saying that this is a reasonable disagreement with me?

I just imagine her smoking a truckload of hashish after getting off work in Jordan or wherever she is. — Heister Eggcart

Defend my assertions? That domination/submission is psychological and that gender is irrelevant. The only reasonable response was the following:

It actually seems like you're dominated by your own unwillingness to trust or love anyone. — Heister Eggcart

It is not that I am antagonistic or unwilling towards love, rather I am waiting until I trust in the love from someone enough to consequently submit to a relationship. The reason it makes a person feel vulnerable is because of this submission to a relationship and the latter is the dominating force because it may feel like your independence is taken away. I was merely trying to point this out using an example of how - as a woman - I cannot be dominated.

Life and statements about it extend beyond whether anyone defends them. Indeed, whether someone choses to defend a statement or not has nothing to do with its truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not quite. It doesn't necessarily mean the undefended position is false.

The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And if my statement is, "you're an idiot, which is true", you can do nothing about it?

So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy . — TheWillowOfDarkness

You've not shown why the burden of proof is a fallacy. Cry wolf, there best be a wolf. No wolf, no truth.

If we are interested in what is true, an absence of an argument or further argumentation is not enough to dismiss any claim. Who knows what reasoning or evidence might be unsaid? To reject a claim, we must actually know it's wrong . It's never enough to just say: "They didn't argue enough." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not saying that TimeLine is wrong, but that her claims are unsubstantiated.

The sexist positions displayed in this thread are still harmful. If someone rejects engaging a position they disagree with in argument, it doesn't mean they cannot object to it. Nor does it mean their objection is wrong or unjustified. Fighting is not a measure or truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've no clue what you're trying to say here.

If we are interested in what is true, an absence of an argument or further argumentation is not enough to dismiss any claim. Who knows what reasoning or evidence might be unsaid? To reject a claim, we must actually know it's wrong . It's never enough to just say: "They didn't argue enough."

The sexist positions displayed in this thread are still harmful. If someone rejects engaging a position they disagree with in argument, it doesn't mean they cannot object to it. Nor does it mean their objection is wrong or unjustified. Fighting is not a measure or truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

At work, I tell people who are a bit timid that if they are not willing to defend their ideas, they might just as well not have them. Truth, schmooth. It's not what the universe ordains as truth that matters, it's what we can convince people of that gets done.

Are you saying that this is a reasonable disagreement with me? — TimeLine

I think it's reasonable for me to be bothered by your refusal to explain your claims with more depth.

Defend my assertions? That domination/submission is psychological and that gender is irrelevant. — TimeLine

Yes, please present your argument for why domination/submission has nothing to do with gender. You've yet to do so, merely suggesting that it's true without qualification.

It is not that I am antagonistic or unwilling towards love, rather I am waiting until I trust in the love from someone enough to consequently submit to a relationship. The reason it makes a person feel vulnerable is because of this submission to a relationship and the latter is the dominating force because it may feel like your independence is taken away. I was merely trying to point this out using an example of how - as a woman - I cannot be dominated. — TimeLine

You can be dominated in other capacities, though.

That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you? — Heister Eggcart

It's not that you disagree with people, it's that you insult them, demean them, call them names, speculate on their personal characteristics and lives. None of that has any bearing on their ideas. It shows a great lack of intellectual courage on your part. You're afraid to duke it out. Afraid to lose. Afraid to be convinced you're wrong.

Where did I do any of that in my first reply to TimeLine? I asked for clarification, additional argument, and all I got was a "sigh." That "sigh" tells me that TimeLine is being a lazy bum. This is just a fact, whether it's mean or not.

Where did I do anything of that in my first reply to TimeLine? I asked for clarification, additional argument, and all I got was a "sigh." That "sigh" tells me that TimeLine is being a lazy bum. This is just a fact, whether it's mean or not. — Heister Eggcart

I wasn't talking about any particular response on your part, I was referring to your whole modus operandi. You're a jerk. A schmuck. Yes, that's an inappropriate ad hominem attack and I'm deeply ashamed. Someone should take this post down.

I wasn't talking about any particular response on your part, I was referring to your whole modus operandi. You're a jerk. A schmuck. Yes, that's an inappropriate ad hominem attack and I'm deeply ashamed. Someone should take this post down. — T Clark

I'm glad that you realized you have nothing to say here, >:O (Y)

I think it's reasonable for me to be bothered by your refusal to explain your claims with more depth. — Heister Eggcart

As you yourself said, that is one point of many. If you want me to clarify something in my argument, make it clear where and why you feel it may not be correct rather than simply hurl out profanities. You have made absolutely no arguments yourself and such a tactic is a way to avoid disclosing your clear inability to be philosophical.

Yes, please present your argument for why domination/submission has nothing to do with gender. — Heister Eggcart

Are you serious? Are you saying men are never submissive and only women are or that men are only dominating etc? "Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. Patriarchal cultures that encourage dominant-submissive roles are not formed due to anything inherent in our chromosomes; such roles are relational. It is driven by a mutually constitutive social experience that attempts to engineer relationships and when in excess - as in, when one person/sex has an excessive need to dominate - exploitation, violence, and other morally abhorrent activities are encouraged to strengthen such differences.

You can be dominated in other capacities, though. — Heister Eggcart

No, it is impossible to dominate me because this submission relies on my consent, which I will never give even in the event where I am coerced by a dominating force. My will is too strong. Submitting to a form of domination must be consensual because it is psychological in nature. The relationship itself is the force of domination while submission to this relationship is the act of being submissive, but there are healthy forms of domination/submission. Hence, why I said that only when I trust the other person enough to believe in their love or care will I 'let go' so to speak, despite the vulnerability as it puts my independence at risk. It is the same trust we allow when we submit to an ideology or government, religions or cultures etc.

Please note that this is not the first time that TheWillow jumps to defend TimeLine. It's not surprising, granted that both of them are post-modernists.

The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed.

So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy . — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're missing the point though. If in a discussion someone refuses to support a claim, then, for the purposes of that discussion, they are conceding the point. This is a necessary part of those rules which are presupposed in a discussion, otherwise we could not have serious discussions in the first place. People would just claim they're right, without actually showing it.

Fighting is not a measure or truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nonsense. I'd take Ludwig's word over yours any day:

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. — TimeLine

Gender is absolutely not a social construct. Gender is biological. Let's have a kid teach you the basics:


Back in the days when people still had a brain which wasn't clogged up by post-modernist propaganda.

Gender is absolutely not a social construct. Gender is biological. — Agustino

Deep, deep, down, down, in the bottom of my heart I feel gender and sex are more or less the same thing. BUT it is, nevertheless, the case that some roles which males and females carry out deviate from what is usually thought of as their normal role. For instance, some women drive trucks and some men take care of babies.

We could just say "sex roles" which is what people used to say. Some women performed normally male roles and some males performed normally female roles.

Well, it bothered some people that anyone should think of truck driving as male and caring for babies as female. I mean, people can be anything they want to be, right? That can change from day to day. Some days the woman drives the truck, some days she takes care of babies. "Don't fence me in!" they sang.

Modern women wanted flexible plastic roles which weren't tied to penises and vaginas. Some men did too. So, here we are. Gender Theory Triumphant.

Deep, deep, down, down, in the bottom of my heart I feel gender and sex are more or less the same thing. BUT it is, nevertheless, the case that some roles which males and females carry out deviate from what is usually thought of as their normal role. For instance, some women drive trucks and some men take care of babies. — Bitter Crank

Okay so what's your point? I have already said that male/female tendencies only exist at a general level, and particular people are absolutely "free" to be the way they are (and should be respected for it). Just cause the statistics say you won't win the lottery doesn't mean that if you play it you can't win it. Statistics don't control the outcome for individuals, but they do generally describe the tendencies that exist for populations - large groups of individuals. Statistics cannot be used to judge individuals, you have to look at the person that is in front of you for that. So I never suggested that women shouldn't drive trucks and men shouldn't take care of babies. It's perfectly fine for women to drive trucks if they want to.

I only said that gender is absolutely not a social construct, and it's something that is biologically given. This means that people cannot suddenly decide they're not a man even though they're born with a penis - for example.

OK, so if I understand what you are saying, gender/sex is confirmed at birth, but gender role is socially constructed, it is not given at birth and it is malleable.

OK, so if I understand what you are saying, gender/sex is confirmed at birth, but gender role is socially constructed, it is not given at birth and it is malleable. — Cavacava

Well if at birth it is known what the socially constructed gender roles are in society then it is confirmed for the baby isn't it? Although not confirmed in the future obviously but it's pretty easy to predict women arn't gonna turn into bricklayers any time soon.

Some significant part of human behavior is encoded in the operations of DNA and another significant part of human behavior is learned. We don't know precisely how much and what of either. Sorting out what is learned and what is genetically inherited is difficult.

Take for instance the difference in the way parents handle male and female babies. Both men and women tend to handle male babies more robustly than they handle female babies. Is this learned or inherited?

That men wear pants and women wear dresses is clearly a learned behavior and is culturally determined. My understanding is that Romans wore tunics and togas while the barbarian Germans wore pants. It's cultural.

The idea that males and females are essentially the same (except reproductively), or are essentially different in many ways is clearly cultural, and will remain debatable until the evidence is in, one way or the other.

My bias is in favor of essential differences, though it is obvious that there is a significant amount of plasticity in our behavior.

But there are female bricklayers.

Slavery and its associated roles in society were 'given' for almost 300 years in USA, but these assumptions are no longer given in society.

Gender roles are learned.

But there are female bricklayers. — Cavacava

yeah but that is besides the point. Just because there is one in the whole world doesn't negate the validity of what is said. The point is the ratio... and at the moment it is like 1 million males to 0.00000000000001 female brick layers lol.

Gender roles are absolutely learned, but at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.

The idea that males and females are essentially the same (except reproductively), or are essentially different in many ways is clearly cultural, and will remain debatable until the evidence is in, one way or the other.

Gender roles are learned, biological differences are just that biological differences. conflation of biological processes with normative processes, I think is mistaken.

Using ridiculously unlikely data undermines your credibility. — T Clark

Didn't you get the message? that is besides the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of female brick layers. Lol, how could you stray so far from the subject matter just to prove some point that is skewed from the original statement. building trades are more encompassing than bricklayers alone so don't build a straw man here. The stats for where i live is 0% for most trades...



ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT, you fool. We were talking about how at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.

As you yourself said, that is one point of many. If you want me to clarify something in my argument, make it clear where and why you feel it may not be correct — TimeLine

I did that in my first reply to you, to which you replied with, "sigh." :/

Are you saying men are never submissive and only women are or that men are only dominating etc? — TimeLine

No, are you?

"Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. Patriarchal cultures that encourage dominant-submissive roles are not formed due to anything inherent in our chromosomes; such roles are relational. It is driven by a mutually constitutive social experience that attempts to engineer relationships and when in excess - as in, when one person/sex has an excessive need to dominate - exploitation, violence, and other morally abhorrent activities are encouraged to strengthen such differences.

Lots of telling, but no showing. Back up these claims of yours, please.

No, it is impossible to dominate me because this submission relies on my consent, which I will never give even in the event where I am coerced by a dominating force. My will is too strong. — TimeLine

So you get to decide whether or not you want to partake in a monetary society? You get to decide what government you're born into and are a citizen of? You get to will whether or not you have to pay taxes? lol

You're missing the point though. If in a discussion someone refuses to support a claim, then, for the purposes of that discussion, they are conceding the point. This is a necessary part of those rules which are presupposed in a discussion, otherwise we could not have serious discussions in the first place. People would just claim they're right, without actually showing it. — Agustino

You're missing mine: in suggesting a claim is wrong or worth rejecting, a person is taking on a responsibility themselves, to know and speak what is true. If we are intellectually responsible, "conceding the point" or "rules of debate" are irrelevant-- we are not concerned with "winning" but understanding.

In this context, which is turn of any instance where a claim of knowledge is of concern, it doesn't matter if someone leaves only an assertion of a sentence. If we are going to reject their claim outright, we need to know they are wrong. We must have some underlying logical or empirical understanding which shows the claim false or suspect.

From here, we actually get better serious discussions because the topic is lifted away from hierarchal rhetoric ( "PROVE IT") to its substance. When faced with, for example, an erroneous single sentence claim, the discussion moves not into pointless "Prove it" stonewalling, but into descriptions of the error.

Only the intellectually lazy presuppose the rules of discussion you suggest, for they are only interested in the rhetorical victory, rather than understanding the truth.

Both have to submit, as both have opposing/complimentary dominant faculties. All Jungian stuff really.

If men don't submit to women, they'll be nihilistic/ have no sense of value. If women don't submit to men, then they'll be delusional/ have no sense of meaning.

Men trying to be super moral and judgmental, and women trying to be super reasonable, and truthful are doing it wrong. They're attempting to wield unconscious faculties in competition to people that have those as their dominant faculties, and rendering themselves idiots in the process.

Gender roles are absolutely learned, but at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn. — intrapersona

We construct our identity under a shared discourse within an 'imagined community' according to Anderson, where our values are designed within social constructs that are invented to hold the community together, what Hobsbawm similarly concluded viz., an administration of a State where ideology motivates a national character that enables social cohesion. The continuity of these imagined landscapes are rooted in traditions and while such beliefs are imagined, the experience itself is actually real because it provides an interpretation of this experience with others.

It can also, however, be used as an instrument to mobilise rather strategically a shared agenda that legitimises power, hence Othering where the anti-semite creates the Jew as Sartre would agree. The Other and the apparent existence of properties that are universal becomes the source that legitimises their created identity and ultimately the domination. It is a desire for power.

Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined, however as mentioned earlier are nevertheless real because as Foucault states, power in discourse is enabling a productive network that efficiently strengthens hierarchies by authenticating 'truths' within these imagined concepts, i.e. gender.

So it is 'true' that all women have feminine attributes and it is 'true' that all men have masculine attributes, when we all know that this is not true. There are many women with masculine attributes and many men with feminine and so, gender is imagined. Sex/biology and feminine/masculine are two different concepts.