/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5185927]

is feminism unnatural?

[Anonymous No.5185949]

>>5185927
You're just going to post this on every board aren't you?

[Anonymous No.5186047]

>>5185949
cbb

[Anonymous No.5186476]

is an apple equal to an orange? of course not.

[Anonymous No.5186493]

I think feminism should be less about post-modern bullshit and more about them appealing to my kinks by getting stronger and more sexually dominant than men.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5186539]

Nothing is unnatural.
I just posted the pic so you all would read this in Bane's voice

[Anonymous No.5186548]

Feminists have very large inferiority complexes. They believe they are worse than men and so must rig society to favour them. They try and get people who speak the truth about men and women brain differences ousted, removed, silenced.

Feminism has infected most stupid men, and most stupid women. We're all fucked if any man in a hard science starts to agree with feminism.

[Anonymous No.5186704]

>>5186548
that pic
i lol'd
i lol'd good

[Anonymous No.5186715]

>>5185927
I don't think that's a particularly important question.

We should view feminism to sociology in the same regard as eugenics is to biology and ask ourselves whether we can use feminism to create a better society and we should start from there.

[Anonymous No.5186813]

>>5186715
Thinks he is scientist. Doesn't morals...

bitch, do you even Einstein?

[Anonymous No.5186841]

Here is a picture of Margaret Thatcher doing science.

Now go back to /r9k/.

[Anonymous No.5186889]

>>5186704
here's another

[Anonymous No.5186899]

>>5186889
I would not be against the idea of more of these.

[Anonymous No.5186918]

>>5186813
I'm not the guy you replied to, but he was being moralistic.

[Anonymous No.5186927]

We just need more girls to not be shallow.

Seriously, its fucked. You know how if you take ten men one of them is smart three of them are average and the rest are stupid?

Its like 1 smart,3 average and 26 stupid for girls

We have to get young girls to stop thinking its cool to be stupid

[Anonymous No.5186931]

>>5186927
This. I remember most of my female friends actually didn't *want* to have good greats, so they don't get classified as nerds. Well, most of those were naturally stupid so no big deal...

[Anonymous No.5186939]

>>5186927
If you take ten men one of them is smart three of them are average and the rest are stupid
It'd be
2 smart
5 average
3 stupid

Because it's easier to notice people who are stupider than you than smarter.

[Anonymous No.5186941]

>>5186931
>greats

[Anonymous No.5187936]

>feminism
>men and women treated as equals

why is this even a debate?

[Anonymous No.5188010]

>>5187936
Because most positions of real power such as big corporations CEO's, heads of state and religious leaders are held by men. That and the ridiculous amount of gender inequality in 3rd World countries.
Rape culture is just a dumb neoconservative excuse for not adressing the role of labour and income distribution in most cases of inequality, be it gender, race or class.
It's ridiculous to separate feminism from socialism where it had its roots.

[Anonymous No.5188029]

>>5188010
sounds like men are built to be leaders
if not, why don't women do it themselves without demanding quotas?

Are you going to backpeddle into conspiracy theory? Is there a patriarchy illuminati controlled by the jewish lizardpeople in the hollow earth that faked the moon landing? Are they behind every inequality and exist just to keep women down?

[Anonymous No.5188069]

>>5188029
>patriarchy illuminati controlled by the jewish lizardpeople in the hollow earth

Now we are talking

[Anonymous No.5188168]

>>5188029
Lol. There's no conspiracy. You should read Hayek and Freedman, I'm afraid they state their ideas pretty explicitly.
The point is the current evolution of capitalism since the seventies (for various reasons) has shifted from social democracy (where a great effort was made to distribute wealth and people could participate meaningfully in various aspects of society, from schools where students had a voice to leisure and sports associations and ultimatly in the work environment) to an increasingly individualistic society where profit and consumption became the most important goals.
While women's status in society around the world had been steadily improving since the late xix century through increasing (finantial) recognition of their work and participation in public decisions. With globalization and individualism feminist movements (as well as workers unions) lost power and started derailing into an individualistic type of feminism that replaced the struggle agaisnt an unfair economical system, that perpetuates injustices to the lower and middle classes regardless of gender or ethnicity, with an irrational hate of men based on sexual sterotypes.
The problems isn't that women can't become heads of state or CEOs. It's that the majority of politicians and big bussiness man have a twisted sense of morals that values agressiveness and exploitation. And it also leads to a class culture, where outsiders aren't allowed in their club unless they share the same values. Rather than skill and hard work determining who gets the job, it's who can exploit people more effectivelly, which is a downside for women since their education and gender stereotypes still places great significance in kindness and empathy (which in theory is good and should also apply to men).

tldr;: gender inequality steams from broader economical injustice.

[Anonymous No.5188198]

>>5188168
First of all, economic systems dont change what people want. If people are greedy, they are greedy. Being free doesn't change this. If people are generous, being free to be generous as they see fit doesn't make them less generous. People being forced to be generous isn't a requirement for naturally generous people to be generous. So your argument that a shift towards more efficient and free market systems has turned people into monsters that hate people based on race/sex/whateverthefuck because there is no government planning their world is completely and hilariously invalid.
And social democracy leads to lower standards of living then markets do. This is fact. Take a macro/utility theory class. Economic calculation is impossible without market derived price intelligence.

Protip: exploit is not an economically useful word. it doesn't mean anything and is just a weasel word that can be used to mean anything, while still being nebulous enough to be non-falsifiable.

For all your posturing, you sound like nothing more than a zeitgeist/ancient aliens stoner teenager. Mathematics and economics have rigor, not just things that sound good to flatter your worldview. Seems like you're just trying to tie together two very trendy and fashionable bourgeoisie viewpoints of feminism and socialism so you can look more "progressive" than your friends. But if you REALLY wanna look like a cool kid, take rigorous econ classes and impress them that way!

[Anonymous No.5188233]

>>5185927
Everything is natural

[Anonymous No.5188270]

>>5188168
>First of all, economic systems dont change what people want. If people are greedy, they are greedy. Being free doesn't change this. If people are generous, being free to be generous as they see fit doesn't make them less generous. People being forced to be generous isn't a requirement for naturally generous people to be generous. So your argument that a shift towards more efficient and free market systems has turned people into monsters that hate people based on race/sex/whateverthefuck because there is no government planning their world is completely and hilariously invalid.
>And social democracy leads to lower standards of living then markets do. This is fact. Take a macro/utility theory class. Economic calculation is impossible without market derived price intelligence.

I don't think this is really borne out by the facts. The biggest impediment to women advancing in the workplace isn't some gender specific values difference; it's the onus of child bearing (and rearing.) As birth rates fall lower and lower and women become better and better educated, I think we will eventually see a shift away from biological mothers as primary caregivers. The other options? I have no idea. Maybe corporate creches or something.

[Anonymous No.5188282]

>>5188270
But mothers VALUE sharing love and care with their children. People like having children and loving their children. This is why they do it. If they didn't, they wouldn't have children. So people choosing their own good for themselves can lead to what arrogant pseudo-intellectuals call "evil conspiracy by the man keeping X group down!!"

[Anonymous No.5188306]

>>5188282
>But mothers VALUE sharing love and care with their children. People like having children and loving their children. This is why they do it. If they didn't, they wouldn't have children. So people choosing their own good for themselves can lead to what arrogant pseudo-intellectuals call "evil conspiracy by the man keeping X group down!!"

I think a gender-based societal inequality of opportunity exists to the extent that the culture at large communicates an expecatation that women ought to be more intimately connected with and involved in the lives of their children, vice fathers who are expected to interface with the world outside the household and procure resources.

At this point I'm sure the barking chauvinists will come in talking about "women's maternal nature" etc, but anthropology puts the lie to the naturalistic argument by giving us a wealth of diverse counterfactual examples of parenting arrangements that don't revolve around the biological mother or father.

[Anonymous No.5188330]

>>5188306
>anthropology
>science
lel
evolutionary biology is all we need to know. It shows us that males and females are inherently different on several levels, across many species. All that we are derives from the male-female dynamic, and it's been that way for a billion years. Your trendy worldview is not above one billion years of evolution. You aren't impressing anyone with your droned 'progressive' fundamentalism. Also caricaturing anyone who contradicts your worldview make you look like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.5188342]

>>5188306
>think a gender-based societal inequality
you THINK. Your thoughts and feelings don't matter, specifically on a math and science board. If you assert something paramount to conspiracy, you have to provide proof.

[Anonymous No.5188349]

>>5186539

jokes on you, i didnt.

[Anonymous No.5188369]

my female friends don't identify with feminism. at least they do a good job at hiding it from me. probably because they saw me getting into a ragefight with a feminist once.

[Anonymous No.5188372]

>>5188330
>>5188342
>hippie socialistfag says "think"
>everyone tells her to provide proof
>other people in this thread go MUH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY DURR FREE MARKET HAS NO SOCIAL EFFECTS without any proof
>no one says anything

Curious and curiouser.

[Anonymous No.5188378]

>>5186715

You know, my most recently acquired stance on feminism, is that matriarchy could be a very positive thing in the modern western world. In the old days when brutality was required in order to conquer new lands, it was men that needed to lead. Now that we have a more stable global world. Lands have been claimed, conquering of new worlds is pretty much finished, and we have acquired the atomic bomb. I think that matriarchy should be implemented around the entire western world, because women look at things from a more diplomatic and non ego-driven perspective than men do. I assure you that todays modern world should be run by women, for the sake of the security of the human race.

[Anonymous No.5188389]

>>5188378
How about we just put a machine-god in charge ?
Logic of the men without the ego.
Nothing to salvage in the women really.

[Anonymous No.5188428]

>>5188369

you raped a feminst? nI'm supreise you havea ny fmale 'friens' ataL.. Tell the truy, a bulldyke beat you up and you are really a forever alone.

[Anonymous No.5188433]

>>5188378
I don't agree with matriarchy because I'm sentimental and want everyone to be treated with respect.

With that said, I feel that the average woman is predisposed to diplomacy.

Only one man can get a woman pregnant at a time. Therefore, men need to constantly compete with one another to pass their genes on. Women, on the other hand, can all share the top men because men can impregnate plenty of women.

Biologically, one woman can't have ten men because nine other will have no incentive (children). But, one man can have ten wives because he can get them all pregnant.

So men have to compete with one another with women, but women would benefit from being friendly with one another. If their husband leaves, his multiple wives could distribute labour amongst each other.

So I think it's fair to say that the petty catfighting we see amongst women now is something that is socialized into them. They're taught to hate other women because they don't "want to be like the other girls" and see other women as stupid and shallow, while idealizing "masculine traits".

[Anonymous No.5188469]

>>5188433

>So I think it's fair to say that the petty catfighting we see amongst women now is something that is socialized into them. They're taught to hate other women because they don't "want to be like the other girls" and see other women as stupid and shallow, while idealizing "masculine traits".

I get your point until this, my brain just cant interpret this into coherent meaning.

[Anonymous No.5188474]

From what I've read on feminist blogs, it seems like they don't want equality at all, they just want more privileges for women. For example, they want free birth control and more money for women specific diseases like breast cancer. But they don't want to have the same fitness standards as men in the police force and military. Men in the Marine Corps have to do pull ups in their fitness test, women only have to hang on a bar for a few seconds. They also don't want to sign up for selective service.

[Anonymous No.5188524]

>>5188469
Ever have a girl come up to you and go "TEEHEE I LOVE FOOTBALL AND VIDEO GAMES"? And then your female friends go "LOL GURL GAMERS R STOOPID AMIRITE?"

Both women are desperately catering to be more like men. They want to be 'one of the guys'. Why?

Because being a woman into girly things is automatically seen as stupid. Ever watch any of those dumb teen movies? The main female character is smart, friendly, and into sports. The "bitch" is a blonde cheerleader. Fuck, even that annoying Taylor Swift song did it. "She wears short skirts/I wear sneakers"?

The more "masculine" woman who is down to earth, like reading, vidya and sports is seen as better than the woman who likes shopping and "girly" sports like dance.

I think this has two origins:
1. Women now have to compete for men in a monogamous society.
2. Sexism makes "male things" like beer culture and sports more appealing than "girl things" like makeup and cheesy movies. Even though all are equally stupid.
3. Women are desperate for male approval in a society where "male values" are normalized and "girl things" are condemned as bimboish

As a result, you have women bitching to you about how she isn't like the other girls. I had a female friend complain to me in high school about cheerleaders being inferior to her when out school didn't have a cheerleading team.

[Anonymous No.5188576]

>>5188428
didn't rape her, she was just so far up her own ass I had to let her know about it.

[Anonymous No.5188582]

>>5188474
>>5188474
>breast cancer

As compared to what? Testicular cancer? Firstly, testicular cancer doesn't kill nearly as many people as breast cancer. Secondly, it's less common. Thirdly, bitching about breast cancer funding denies the fact that not only women get breast cancer. Fourthly, survivors of testicular cancer don't have annoying adverts of men in speedos bouncing their balls around like "save the boobies" ads do.

Your only argument would be prostate cancer. In Canada (lol canadafag), breast cancer is the second deadliest cancer and prostate cancer (not testicular) is third.

As for the military, I agree that people with different jobs should have different requirements. If a woman is not going to be on the front lines, why should they have to be as fit?

[Anonymous No.5188606]

>>5188524

Sorry for the late response, i agree with you completely, but i can´t see how this makes you oppose matriarchy.

[Anonymous No.5188646]

>>5188606
>>5188606
I oppose matriarchy just because I feel that men and women are more alike than different.

For example, women in the third and second world do better or equal to men in math scores. The ability to succeed is there, but I think women are just predisposed to not care about math because it's abstract and isn't about people or relationships. Women can do math, they just choose not to when they're in a rich, western society where their life doesn't depend on getting into a good school.

In the same way, I feel men are completely capable of civil and diplomatic behaviour even if it isn't their first instinct. We can have a more peaceful society when we stop trying to actively push one group into the ground. I just feel matriarchy would be met with plenty of opposition that could lead to war and a power vacuum.

[Anonymous No.5188680]

>>5188646

Yea, realistically speaking, it would take a while to actually implement. It would be interesting nonetheless to see it happen.

[Anonymous No.5188716]

>>5188680
For purely observational purposes, I would love to see a matriarchy. But I wouldn't want women to run everything at the expense of males in that society. Sexism against women has already caused enough death and despair, why chop penises off?

While I think women have more of a biological incentive to get along, I still think men and women are more similar than we admit. Women like Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher and Wu Zetian were stone-cold bitches. Whether you agree with their politics or not, they were aggressive and definitely not diplomatic. Women might develop emotional interests in others at an earlier age (hence the love of dolls), but that doesn't translate to empathy.

I feel if there were more women running America right now, the abortion debate would be closed and there would be more social programs. It's up to decide if that's good or bad.

[Anonymous No.5188724]

The problem with 3rd wave feminism is that they want to push "feminine traits" to be equal to "masculine" traits, so a women can be feminine but still equal to men.

Which is completely stupid since "feminine traits" are simply garbage when it comes to be successful in any kind of business or organisation, as opposed to common "male traits" like confidence, assertiveness, logical thinking etc.

[Anonymous No.5188741]

>>5188716

Are you by any chance a female?

[Anonymous No.5188769]

>>5188724
But that isn't completely true. We can get computers to do so much physical labour for us. In the future, we'll need more inventors and people like therapists because factory jobs won't exist. You'll need individuals with "people skills" and sensitivity. In a post-colonial world, you'll also need less military and more diplomacy.

We can dismiss emotions all we want, but it's a fact that they effect society. Therefore, we need emotional people to interpret them.

[complainer !!bieENIgma64 No.5188782]

>>5185927
I like that pic, because if the man started licking her crotch, she'd probably scream rape, and cry about it on the internet for at least 3 months about her rape experience.

[Anonymous No.5188793]

>>5188782

Women are manipulative whores. Our ancestors saw that and kept them at bay, until some idiot in charge gave them the right to vote.

[Anonymous No.5188797]

>>5188716
Women have more of an instinct to compete with one another than men do. This is because a majority of average men are beta (not saying this in a pejorative way) and the average man, while preferring many women, would be perfectly content with one woman. On the other hand, women have a biological instinct to be hypergamous, and therefore have more incentive to compete with each other for the best male available. Just observe the way the average woman treats other women, versus the way the average man treas other men.

[Anonymous No.5188822]

>>5188797
>compete for the best male
The alpha male could and would have multiple females. Why would he just have one woman when he could have many? Sure, most men are just fine with one woman. But I doubt men would turn down having multiple women if there were no strings attached.

>Just observe the way the average woman treats other women, versus the way the average man treas other men.
Pree subjective there, brah.

[Anonymous No.5188836]

The world is facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. The european union is falling appart, the US and China will follow. Rising unemployment, lower salaries, less employment rights, while the pit between the rich and poor widens.
And you guys still having a debate between matriarchal vs patriarchal society. Wake up, there's finantial institutions and big corporations getting fat and there's an increasingly poor middle class.
Expect fascism and communism to grow considerably popular in the next 5 years.
Hungary might be a good starting point.

[Anonymous No.5188840]

>>5188797

> women have an instinct to be hypergamous

You're about two millennia too late to spout that nonsense. Ever since Christianity took over the Roman empire by telling women not to have sex with heathens, that argument has been considered ludicrous.

As for OP, > implying "natural" is a well-defined property and that it is a good property to possess.

Ephebophilia is natural, but wrong.

[Anonymous No.5188854]

>>5188836

Except the United states wont follow. Why do you think they are spending so much money on advanced military weaponry? Just for the heck of it?

Wake up buddy.

[Anonymous No.5188886]

[Anonymous No.5188923]

[Anonymous No.5188926]

>>5188769

Do you need people who can interpret your emotions now? Why would you need many more in the future, do you think people will go insane because there're no more factory jobs? In any case therapists won't run society. Most people on top of the food chain(and paycheck chain) will always be assertive and have "male traits", regardless of their gender.

You don't become successful by being a shy wallflower whose goal in life is to have her own family(as most women want by the way).

[Anonymous No.5188938]

>>5188926

> as most women want

Half the problem with the western lack of population growth is that women want more than that.

[Anonymous No.5188949]

>>5188938

Just google up any survey on that matter, most women say having children is very important to them. We have low population growth because people nowadays are content with having only 1 or 2 children.

[Anonymous No.5188981]

>>5186548
studying theoretical physics/post-modernist 3rd wave feminist here
nice projecting

[Anonymous No.5188987]

>>5186927
>>5186931
I have no idea where you guys are getting your info from but in my highschool the people who were usually top of the class, not as much in the STEM magnets but still managed to be prevalent, were almost all girls
it was a typical magnet school, hardly liberal
so yeah, anecdote vs. anecdote

[Anonymous No.5189454]

>>5188987
This made me a bit salty so I will reply with this.
>work ethic

Really liking this thread, pretty interesting.
On the patriarchy vs matriarchy note, this is what I think.
If we were able to raise a generation of kids without our cultural pressure, assuming men and women are more similar than we think, the women would be just as good at math as men, etc. I think there is a possibility that women will reach the same conclusion as men and have the same mentality of conquering shit and stuff. This all depends on what kind of culture you raise them in, if not our culture. On a side note, if I am right, I think women will experience evolutionary emotions that they will be unable to interpret or at least will find weird.

[bohica !!kta3gzArcGJ No.5189821]

>>5185927
Sauce on Pic?
one ex-gf was a chauvinist and another a feminist. The chauvinist was deeply religious and the feminist was a mechanical engineer. As long as it understands the difference in brain/mind functions of the two sexes I dont see a problem. Let them preach.

[Anonymous No.5189897]

Feminists want to be men. Ever hear them insist men and women are exactly the same with regards to our brains? That's because they feel inferior.

It's also why they want to end "gender roles". They see their roles as worse. They want men to assume their gender roles, and vice-versa. It won't work though, because our gender roles are biology, not sociology.