Originally Posted by Alice
This is a paradow indeed, but maybe on a different level than you think: Highly evolved intelligent and clever thinking scientists use their minds to try prove that we are merely animals run by hormones.
In the long run, this kind of research is used to cement gender stereotypes that goes well beyond an initial animal instinct. We kinda have more evolved brain than monkeys.
Iceland has been number one for a number of years (birthplace of eve online, wohoo!) I suggest you visit sometimes.
Yes, women and men are different on a general note. (Edit, general as in physical and sometimes hormonial) Why use that difference in order to justify treating people differently? There is a richness in a colorful demographic gone lost in that argument.
I think that games like WOW in a really good way embrace differences. You can have a nearly FPS experience when doing PVP battle or a lore/storytelling experience when exploring and questing. I only wish that there would be more casual gaming like games in it that could be accessed through my mobile device, along with guild chat, the armory, the auction house etc.
Conclusion, yes we are different but don't let the monkey forefathers dictate the society we choose to build.
(I personally think hat this kind of reasoning is patriarchy bullshit used to keep women down in the same manner the religion is trying to use creationism to keep people in line. But that is a whole other debate and I'd love to take it with you in a PM instead of here, to keep the thread open. PM me if you want to discuss it.)
There are many time I use the bold part in my reply, but it seems that it never work for me. Anyway, I knew all the replies are coming, I already mentioned what happened to a nobel winner and a top university president (it ended with him stepping down).
But, let me focus on one of your main sentence...
"Yes, women and men are different on a general note. (Edit, general as in physical and sometimes hormonial) Why use that difference in order to justify treating people differently? There is a richness in a colorful demographic gone lost in that argument."
Especially this part....
Why use that difference in order to justify treating people differently?
There are quotes by Albert Einstein that given the opportunity to live his live again, he would live as a plumber.
I don't really know why, maybe due how nuclear technology was used in war?
The main thing here is, what did you mean by treating people differently (in positive ways or negative ways) and by whom?
But you can't blame a scientist for saying that 1 + 1 = 2. (Again, this is an example. Not related to gender differences).
And politics should really not rule upon science...
Look, I know people are afraid of such research because they think that history might repeat itself:
But the thing is, its all in how people are being treated (given help or denied help)? and by who (government with interest or by people that care?)
The problem with this kind of topic, if we were to delve into dna, intelligence, superiority, etc, is going to involve Nazi, Aryan, etc, etc, etc. I'm not not into that mood, enough with the name calling by those reply above already.
And I think I already have a conversation regarding this here and be as nice and politically correct as possible when we were talking about talent and intelligence. Search it up. I think I try not invoke people of certain color and intelligence by actually using people with red hair and skin cancer. But it seems, that thread, since it talk about talent and skill and intelligence and child prodigy, doesn't bring out much trolls and name calling as a topic that talk about boys, girls, and Anita.
So I'm going to leave this topic by giving this two tidbits...
In the long run, this kind of research is used to cement gender stereotypes that goes well beyond an initial animal instinct.
Only if you allowed it to be used that way. Strangely, nobody cares if the one that looked bad are the boys...
Only if it was girls that s**tstorm would ensues (and name calling too). I remember reading articles about men education in universities (look at the number yourself) and how a female lecturer talks about men needed to be given negative enforcement (because they often over estimate their abilities) which never asked to step down, of course.
Anyway, I'm done. I already know what will happen in this thread when someone try to think logical. Oh well...