100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Actually women get some preferential hiring in tedious labor things like microchip manufacturing. Thing is it's assembly line work for pathetic pay and with no upward mobility so men, and women of most ethnicities really, wouldn't tolerate it. It's work they could do with machines but don't because easily abused humans are cheaper.
Typically though to stand an equal footing for promotion (when ability is actually equal) women have had to sleep their way up corporate ladders and such. I used to think that sort of thing was over and that any woman doing it was being manipulative but I've learned a bit more about how people run the show recently... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well actually you've been abused in the workplace as well. Women get shuffled off into the garbage work that employers don't think men would tolerate and they often get paid much less under the assumption that there's a man bringing in a better lump of cash for their family.
If you're middle class this is probably not something you'll face but to think that these sexist attitudes don't leach up into your life is probably rather short sighted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
|
 This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism  Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon However this sounds extremely shifty to me. Eugenics was built on the idea that stupid peasants had more children than smart and/or rich people so people ought to be getting dumber and if you look into racism we've frequently thought that races with large families would overtake white people yet it hasn't come anywhere close to happening. Questions I have to ask are how many generations of women they were looking at. It could just be a local anomaly while you need this sort of fertility difference to persist for at least a few generations to swing things in it's direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
|
|
Any kind of genetic muscle defect still has some awfully strong selective pressure against it. There are still lots of diseases out there than can kill us. Furthermore we've been shaping our environment into something different from what we spent the last 50,000 years adapting to. There are all kinds of pressures you've probably never considered though. In a lot of the world people still can't get enough food to survive. Do you think they're not under environmental pressures? In the "better" places the majority of marriages end in divorce. What kinds of pressures do you think that places on the children? I can tell you straight up that there's a strong connection between broken homes and out of whack stress hormones. And even without other competitor species we still compete heavily with each other. Social groups go to war with each other and fighting to the death has a lot of very extreme pressures. Within the group there's also competition as females have demanded mates that can give their children a better chance of living and males have demanded better mates if they're going to invest so much energy into that. We are the most successful species on this planet. We create tools and can shape our enviroment in ways other life cannot even concieve. Biological evolution is an obsolete process for us. We have an even greater potential for self improvement. But yes, we're not that far off from moving to a phase when old style evolution has basically no impact. We are getting better and better at shaping our living enviroments. Every year more and more conveniences are created. I believe that we have already moved beyond the phase where biological evolution has any impact. It takes too long.Too "clumsy" Humans operate on a different timescale. We have a greater potential to shape "ourselves". To shape future "intelligence". Non biological "evolution". The Singularity. You could say it has stopped mattering but that's a big difference from saying it has just stopped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
|
|
Any kind of genetic muscle defect still has some awfully strong selective pressure against it. There are still lots of diseases out there than can kill us. Furthermore we've been shaping our environment into something different from what we spent the last 50,000 years adapting to. There are all kinds of pressures you've probably never considered though. In a lot of the world people still can't get enough food to survive. Do you think they're not under environmental pressures? In the "better" places the majority of marriages end in divorce. What kinds of pressures do you think that places on the children? I can tell you straight up that there's a strong connection between broken homes and out of whack stress hormones. And even without other competitor species we still compete heavily with each other. Social groups go to war with each other and fighting to the death has a lot of very extreme pressures. Within the group there's also competition as females have demanded mates that can give their children a better chance of living and males have demanded better mates if they're going to invest so much energy into that. We are the most successful species on this planet. We create tools and can shape our enviroment in ways other life cannot even concieve. Biological evolution is an obsolete process for us. We have an even greater potential for self improvement. But yes, we're not that far off from moving to a phase when old style evolution has basically no impact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
|
|
Any kind of genetic muscle defect still has some awfully strong selective pressure against it.
There are still lots of diseases out there than can kill us. Furthermore we've been shaping our environment into something different from what we spent the last 50,000 years adapting to. There are all kinds of pressures you've probably never considered though. In a lot of the world people still can't get enough food to survive. Do you think they're not under environmental pressures? In the "better" places the majority of marriages end in divorce. What kinds of pressures do you think that places on the children? I can tell you straight up that there's a strong connection between broken homes and out of whack stress hormones. And even without other competitor species we still compete heavily with each other. Social groups go to war with each other and fighting to the death has a lot of very extreme pressures. Within the group there's also competition as females have demanded mates that can give their children a better chance of living and males have demanded better mates if they're going to invest so much energy into that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Brainiacs
Edited by
Shoku
on
Mon 12/07/09 07:45 PM
|
|
It's standing on the shoulders of giants. Each generation has more catching up to do before they can break new ground and there are so many people that we've really done just about everything that's easy to do.
*There are likely some other lucky discoveries we could be making (like teflon,) but you find those by accident- it's hard to pursue random luck any better than we already do. But mostly we just avoid renaming an idea after newer people. Newton's stuff like action and reaction gets a lot of recognition because you have to learn the general rule before you can learn the excepts but Newton's laws were wrong and we've replaced stuff like his gravity with Einstein's relativity but that one's too much math to do in your head so we use Newton's stuff when we don't need to be precise. Though we do throw out a lot of old ideas. Since the atomic model you only ever hear about pholgistom if you're specifically looking at outdated ideas we don't use anymore. (That was supposed to be something lighter than air that was given off by burning metals to explain why the burnt material was heavier than what they started with- now we know that atoms from the air form bonds with the metal atoms.) We've actually only really kept that high a level of respect for people after the scientific method came into practice. Turns out making an educated guess and then checking if you can find ways to disprove it or confirm risky predictions from it accomplishes A LOT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The message was that men and women are flawed and not perfect. It gave historical examples of such flaws which included many of the awful laws that were in place in the old testament. After Jesus arrived, the new testament, we were given guidance based upon Gods laws and not mans. Jesus did not place women as secondary humans and hopefully, those reading the bible as christians, place the messages that Jesus delivered above all else. As a woman one of my peeves is people that bend the bible to some chauvanistic truth. for every passage in the bible that gives guidance on how a female should carry herself there is an equal passage on how a man should,, but chauvanists overlook that. When these two roles, so to speak, are followed together, they are beautiful and not chauvanistic or demeaning at all. You must not be reading it. Let's just troll through Mathew to see what Jesus said. 5:32 divorce is alright if the wife adulters but if a man cheats that's no justification for divorce. where does it say that? you're making stuff up. all it says is affirming the woman's right to not be put aside by the man except in the case of adultry. it says not a word about a man's adultry 24:19 pregnancy and nursing are terrible dirty things. again you lift sentences out of context and change their meaning. the sentence before reads "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" thus he says women having children in the end times will be miserable 25:1 sounds a bit like Islam where heaven is like having numerous virgin women. because he tells a parable about not being ready for the coming of the Lord. ohhh I get just because he said the word virgin? Ok, maybe Mathew was a dick. Mark is fairly decent about women with just some matter of fact end of days stuff but I can let that slide. Luke... well, 2:22 Even giving birth to Jesus was still so dirty a thing that his mother had to be cleansed. Well, that's just one of those stupid laws from the past right? 22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons." that doesnt even makes sense to what you said 2:23 no, next verse clearly states that the man's part in reproduction makes him holy. Then the next couple of books only really say that a wife must submit to her husband but that's not so much the direct word of Jesus as far as my skimming shows. Get Timothy 1 5 gets kind of nasty again but I'm not going to go through the entire thing here. So again. You can reject the message we're clearly being sent here if you know well enough to but the way you talk about the Bible is going to make people think they don't need to know better. you're just twisting and manipulating sentences out of context with the whole verses someone who didnt know better might fall for it but its kinda dishonest Nonetheless why should women be made to suffer more for having children in the end of times? God could make men just as miserable but here woe unto women. Men dont bare children. They would not suffer the same way. Their suffering would be based upon THEIR responsibilities and roles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The message was that men and women are flawed and not perfect. It gave historical examples of such flaws which included many of the awful laws that were in place in the old testament. After Jesus arrived, the new testament, we were given guidance based upon Gods laws and not mans. Jesus did not place women as secondary humans and hopefully, those reading the bible as christians, place the messages that Jesus delivered above all else. As a woman one of my peeves is people that bend the bible to some chauvanistic truth. for every passage in the bible that gives guidance on how a female should carry herself there is an equal passage on how a man should,, but chauvanists overlook that. When these two roles, so to speak, are followed together, they are beautiful and not chauvanistic or demeaning at all. You must not be reading it. Let's just troll through Mathew to see what Jesus said. 5:32 divorce is alright if the wife adulters but if a man cheats that's no justification for divorce. where does it say that? you're making stuff up. all it says is affirming the woman's right to not be put aside by the man except in the case of adultry. it says not a word about a man's adultry 24:19 pregnancy and nursing are terrible dirty things. again you lift sentences out of context and change their meaning. the sentence before reads "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" thus he says women having children in the end times will be miserable 25:1 sounds a bit like Islam where heaven is like having numerous virgin women. because he tells a parable about not being ready for the coming of the Lord. ohhh I get just because he said the word virgin? Ok, maybe Mathew was a dick. Mark is fairly decent about women with just some matter of fact end of days stuff but I can let that slide. Luke... well, 2:22 Even giving birth to Jesus was still so dirty a thing that his mother had to be cleansed. Well, that's just one of those stupid laws from the past right? 22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons." that doesnt even makes sense to what you said 2:23 no, next verse clearly states that the man's part in reproduction makes him holy. Then the next couple of books only really say that a wife must submit to her husband but that's not so much the direct word of Jesus as far as my skimming shows. Get Timothy 1 5 gets kind of nasty again but I'm not going to go through the entire thing here. So again. You can reject the message we're clearly being sent here if you know well enough to but the way you talk about the Bible is going to make people think they don't need to know better. you're just twisting and manipulating sentences out of context with the whole verses someone who didnt know better might fall for it but its kinda dishonest Nonetheless why should women be made to suffer more for having children in the end of times? God could make men just as miserable but here woe unto women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew 5:32 (King James Version) 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery --Perhaps because women were not permitted under law to divorce?-- Matthew 24:19 (King James Version) 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! - if you had born a child you would know its usually not exactly a party,, -- Matthew 25:1 (King James Version) 1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom --a comparison of a feeling or a metaphor,,,--- To say that the bible is not simple to understand completely is not something I can disagree with,,b ut I think some deliberately misquote and paraphrase their way to points that arent truthful or valid. Why's Jesus saying the laws that let men divorce but not women are right? Child birth is difficult but we consider it a miracle, why did Jesus say it was to be pitied? Yes, it's a metaphor that objectifies women. With the things that we don't take literally the message is even clearer. But hey, it's clear that you want to stick your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and say lalala. Actually, Jesus commenting about the CURRENT law is not saying it is right or wrong. The pain of child birth is to be pitied,, because it did not have to be so. I feel not at all objectified by the truth. As far as Matthew,, Jesus says he is not abolishing the law until he has fulfilled it. He also references the commandments in the same passage, alluring to the LAW he is speaking of. Laws are amendable and were so even in biblical days, so it would not be rational to believe Jesus felt the laws were to remain the same forever. He speaks in Matthew about how Laws should be applied and it is in that context that he referred to laws in this passage. And where does the Bible say the pain in childbearing comes from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew 5:32 (King James Version) 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery --Perhaps because women were not permitted under law to divorce?-- Matthew 24:19 (King James Version) 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! - if you had born a child you would know its usually not exactly a party,, -- Matthew 25:1 (King James Version) 1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom --a comparison of a feeling or a metaphor,,,--- To say that the bible is not simple to understand completely is not something I can disagree with,,b ut I think some deliberately misquote and paraphrase their way to points that arent truthful or valid. Why's Jesus saying the laws that let men divorce but not women are right? Child birth is difficult but we consider it a miracle, why did Jesus say it was to be pitied? Yes, it's a metaphor that objectifies women. With the things that we don't take literally the message is even clearer. But hey, it's clear that you want to stick your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and say lalala. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The message was that men and women are flawed and not perfect. It gave historical examples of such flaws which included many of the awful laws that were in place in the old testament. After Jesus arrived, the new testament, we were given guidance based upon Gods laws and not mans. Jesus did not place women as secondary humans and hopefully, those reading the bible as christians, place the messages that Jesus delivered above all else. As a woman one of my peeves is people that bend the bible to some chauvanistic truth. for every passage in the bible that gives guidance on how a female should carry herself there is an equal passage on how a man should,, but chauvanists overlook that. When these two roles, so to speak, are followed together, they are beautiful and not chauvanistic or demeaning at all. You must not be reading it. Let's just troll through Mathew to see what Jesus said. 5:32 divorce is alright if the wife adulters but if a man cheats that's no justification for divorce. 24:19 pregnancy and nursing are terrible dirty things. 25:1 sounds a bit like Islam where heaven is like having numerous virgin women. Ok, maybe Mathew was a dick. Mark is fairly decent about women with just some matter of fact end of days stuff but I can let that slide. Luke... well, 2:22 Even giving birth to Jesus was still so dirty a thing that his mother had to be cleansed. Well, that's just one of those stupid laws from the past right? 2:23 no, next verse clearly states that the man's part in reproduction makes him holy. Then the next couple of books only really say that a wife must submit to her husband but that's not so much the direct word of Jesus as far as my skimming shows. Get Timothy 1 5 gets kind of nasty again but I'm not going to go through the entire thing here. So again. You can reject the message we're clearly being sent here if you know well enough to but the way you talk about the Bible is going to make people think they don't need to know better. IM not clear how my post would make anyone think they didnt need to read for themselves. There are accounts of various views of women in the bible. The ones that were backed up by Jesus however, through his own behavior, were not those which placed women secondary. Being that Jesus brought Gods message, his would be the one I would expect to follow, his example stands before any others. You're saying that people have to bend it to get these messages. I'm saying you have to bend it to escape getting those messages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The message was that men and women are flawed and not perfect. It gave historical examples of such flaws which included many of the awful laws that were in place in the old testament. After Jesus arrived, the new testament, we were given guidance based upon Gods laws and not mans. Jesus did not place women as secondary humans and hopefully, those reading the bible as christians, place the messages that Jesus delivered above all else. As a woman one of my peeves is people that bend the bible to some chauvanistic truth. for every passage in the bible that gives guidance on how a female should carry herself there is an equal passage on how a man should,, but chauvanists overlook that. When these two roles, so to speak, are followed together, they are beautiful and not chauvanistic or demeaning at all. You must not be reading it. Let's just troll through Mathew to see what Jesus said. 5:32 divorce is alright if the wife adulters but if a man cheats that's no justification for divorce. 24:19 pregnancy and nursing are terrible dirty things. 25:1 sounds a bit like Islam where heaven is like having numerous virgin women. Ok, maybe Mathew was a dick. Mark is fairly decent about women with just some matter of fact end of days stuff but I can let that slide. Luke... well, 2:22 Even giving birth to Jesus was still so dirty a thing that his mother had to be cleansed. Well, that's just one of those stupid laws from the past right? 2:23 no, next verse clearly states that the man's part in reproduction makes him holy. Then the next couple of books only really say that a wife must submit to her husband but that's not so much the direct word of Jesus as far as my skimming shows. Get Timothy 1 5 gets kind of nasty again but I'm not going to go through the entire thing here. So again. You can reject the message we're clearly being sent here if you know well enough to but the way you talk about the Bible is going to make people think they don't need to know better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, though it gets difficult to explain to non believers. The bible is a collection of historical truths and Gods words directly. There is nowhere that God says that women have a lesser value,, that is all up to interpretation. There were LAWS however, that MAN had made during that time which are mentioned in the bible which did put women as secondary, but when Jesus came he actually brought with him laws that contradicted the laws at that time. Women were also not to talk to men in public but Jesus himself kept the company of and made conversation with plenty of women. To say that because the bible recorded history it should be burned,,is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water. As far as the bible putting the man in charge, this is also false and taken from context. There are SEVERAL places in the bible that the man is meant to submit to others, including Christ, ,and in the context of a man who is submitting to christ,, so is his wife to submit to him. It is a mutual relationship not one of one way servitude and not one extended to all women and all men,,just husbands and wives. The Bible and really all ancient story repeatedly paints women as the sources of evil. Greek myth had about a million female monsters terrorizing people and if they weren't distinctly female they were some kind of animal. Even regular women were the source of wars and the unleashers of unfathomable suffering. The Bible paints Eve as a Pandora opening the box with that apple and offers frequent reminders of how women not kept on leashes turn horrible, like how Lot's daughters raped their father after having left that city. SO really what there is to say is that it's possible to promote feminism in spite of the message the Bible, or whichever bronze age history book you prefer, sends. You can choose not to pick up those messages and perhaps just say that women were horrible in history while trying not to let that impact your view of modern women. You have to override the message it's sending because you know better and if you want to say that you're just reading it "the right way" to yourself that's fine but you are undeniably drawing your morals from elsewhere and telling others that the Bible is infallible will result in people without those morals who will conduct themselves rottenly. No decent person can use that book like that and you need to recognize the weight of telling them that it's not just ok to do so but that it's the only "right" way. After all, people can do what you're doing with the Koran and change it into a decent book but that doesn't change the intense oppressive force it has become in those places where they don't have these other morals to interpret it through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. Truly. They should have been burning bibles! That's where all the male-chauvinism stems from in the first place. Well sort of. It's the biggest instrument for that europe-wise but basically all around the world men took the power positions and made women dirty or in some way said they weren't generally fit for the big leadership roles that ultimately end up making the decisions about how rights get applied to people. Everywhere men took the big gambles and women sat around safely using what they had. If you look around you can see that being a woman doesn't cut someone off from being strong as a politician or artist, or whatever but we still marginalize them for no reason other than their gender. And when I say we I'm not only talking about men. This is a wider reaching issue in the way we think than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. "Throw off the shackles of oppression" took the shackles a bit too literally thinking that things like sewing were lesser skills- no, men started knitting and all of that as sailors because ropes were damn important but then when the activity was handed off to women we just said it was nothing.
Feminism has focused too much on getting numbers close to 50/50 and as that happened people got complacent enough to let the actual progress slide back down the slope. It's not what you do that matters but that you get the same recognition for the same levels of importance instead of just some space in the margins of this story. The truth is that is you don't make a fuss people will welcome you right in to central society... as a doormat to wipe their feet on. As humans we've got a strong tendency towards being the least we can possibly be because it's expensive and risky to do more but if you're sitting around waiting for a better chance as if you expect to win the lottery you've fallen right into the oppressive trap that's kept these social constructs held together for so long. Ultimately nobody gets better rights except when they make it known that what they have is unacceptable and demand better treatment. If you ever want to be respected you can't let these things not be a big deal- that's exactly how they continue forever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Human evolution
|
|
Most of you are looking at it all wrong. The Singularity is the next step in our "evolution". Not the clumsy natural processes most of you keep talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of you guys need to learn the basics about evolution because many of you are way off. Natural selection is only one part of evolution. You could completely remove it and animals would still evolve. Genetic Drift? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Human evolution
|
|
The direction we will evolve if uninterrupted is not very interesting. We might deal with anger better, resort to violence less, and have fewer of those annoying middle-age ailments like back problems. Right now our bodies are more adapted to the hunter gatherer set up than city living (but city living obviously works better for us.)
The next 50,000 years or so will get us very well adapted to this kind of living but if society is headed in the socialist direction it seems to be we won't see the differences quite so much because we will have already put ourselves in a situation where the old body plan performs really well. The distant future is unpredictable as what we become will be based entirely on what troubles we face. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
