Then for every leg, download possible times and prices. Finally, simple search for the optimal combination.
You don't have contact details in your profile, but if you email me I can send you more details. I'm extremely busy just now, but if we establish contact I can send you relevant things in slow time. Let me know.
I think your main point is wrong. It might be that some of the technological advancements are still (73 years after it was written) unrealistic, but they are not what makes the world 'bad': They are just tools to bring the ideas about caste and class to their extremes, and make them clearer that way.
I would agree though that not all aspects of the 'dystopian world' are bad, and it's very interesting to read his utopian book Island, that definitely embraces drug and hedonism, but in a different way.
I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. I also think it's common knowledge by now that sex influences the development of diseases (which is what the paper is about).
What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology. This paper doesn't contribute anything to that question.
You seem to suggest that people are completely determined by their biological setup, and that there are no influences from society. I don't think that's right.
I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. </dons flamesuit>
I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man.
The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.
Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male".
I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
> Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male".
I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"?
A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example.
Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses.
That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case.
Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?
>Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference.
A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas.
B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature.
C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.
I don't think so, there's a vast amount of LGBT authors who advocate the idea of sexuality as a social construct, be it homo-, hetero- or other sexualities
It seems odd to me that sexuality is a social construct even though gender is not. We know that gender is not merely a social construct because we know that gender dysphoria is not merely a social construct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder#Biolog...)
There isn't a logical conflict there of course, sexuality could be a social construct despite gender not being that simple, ...it just seems odd to me. I suspect that sexuality, like gender, is not that simple.
The concept of sexual orientation is a social construct. Unquestionably. It's an idea that's pretty much unique to our culture (modern western countries primarily). Other cultures throughout history had different concepts that were quite different.
The fact that different people experience sexual or romantic attraction differently, and that not everyone is simply attracted only to the opposite sex, is not a social construct. It's a fact.
You have to distinguish between sex and gender. Gender is socially constructed, but it is a necessary social reaction to biological differences between the sexes (for example, everywhere maternity is generally biologically constructed, but everywhere paternity is socially constructed --- it is a matter of record who one's mother is biologically, but this is usually not a matter of direct record for paternity). The thing is there is a really complex relationship between biology and culture and gender itself highlights a lot of that complexity.
Add to that the fact that identity carries with it social constructs offered by society, cognitive and psychological individual factors, etc, and that this does not rule out some biological factors regarding how the individual relates to the rest of these.
So "merely" meaning to the exclusion of other factors, sure. But that doesn't mean that the social constructs might not even be at the forefront.
I also played with dolls as a boy, if you count Lego minifigures. I played around with them in a fantasy world where they did things and interacted with each other socially.
> Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"?
I belive there were some experiments with babies by Trond Diseth that showed that babies have a natural tedency towards interacting with gender specific toys.
I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict.
Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.)
We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
>My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender.
That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists.
Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point.
>I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice.
I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.
I hear what you're saying. Let me show you how it looks from my perspective.
Imagine if the History department had an aggregation of white supremacists. They were allowed to have their own department, their own academic journals, and even held positions of power like Dean. Would their more inclusive peers not hold some responsibility in enabling these bigots? I know you're pointing out the good side of gender studies but you're also being apologetic and enabling radicalized feminism.
Every feminist and their mom is quick to point out how feminism is inclusive whenever this discussion comes up. Very few of them actually stand up to transphobia, misandry, and countless other forms of bigotry in their circles.
This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.
To be a feminist, one must advocate for women's rights at a bare minimum.
Everything else is completely up to the individual, and the fact is there exist lots of schools with contradictory opinions on major social issues. Sex-positive/sex-negative, pro-traditional femininity (lipstick feminist)/anti-traditional femininity, pro-trans/transphobic (TERF), political lesbian, separatist, postmodernist (the prevailing type of feminism in mainstream journalism and academia today), pro-life/pro-choice, complementarian and so on.
Bottom line is, let's stop treating feminism like some omnibenevolent movement for equal rights, and as if radicals are just "fringes who don't make a difference". This is not true anymore. Feminism got derailed decades ago. Go read any large feminist publication like Feministing or Jezebel, and it embraces the toxicity of postmodern feminism.
> Bottom line is, let's stop treating feminism like some omnibenevolent movement for equal rights, and as if radicals are just "fringes who don't make a difference". This is not true anymore. Feminism got derailed decades ago. Go read any large feminist publication like Feministing or Jezebel, and it embraces the toxicity of postmodern feminism.
This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.
Actually, the gp comment's point is precisely that it's not a coherent movement. There are smaller factions within it, and some of these are coherent and harmful, IMO. (Same goes for MRM. Angry people sometimes do harm. Fancy that.)
> This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.
Bingo.
BTW, anyone who thinks it is a coherent movement needs to read this feminist critique of obstetrics(which expands to a critique of modern medicine and mainstream feminism):
"Birth as an American Rite of Passage" by Robbie Davis-Floyd. Better to read the second edition than the first.
Yes, most will not say that they are for equal rights of men as well. But some have found that a lot of that is just lip service at best.
> I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
In my opinion and based on my own readings, I think that feminists want to maintain a monopoly on philosophy of gender equality. Yes, I said philosophy; feminism is an ideology. And while there is nothing wrong about ideologies, there can be many ideologies about the same subject. Thankfully for feminists, though, ideologies about gender can be divided into:
- Different feminist paradigms
- Sexists and homophobes
At least as far as most people are concerned. But maybe somebody wants to create a new philosophy of gender, a philosophy that might be in part mutually exclusive w.r.t some feminist "dogmas"? Well, great; now the feminists can readily shoot down these ideologies because they are "sexist", merely because of the fact that some of their views oppose some of the common feminist views. Hey, if it's not feminism, or it contradicts some feminist viewpoints, then it surely must be sexist, since feminism is the perfect incarnation of egalitarianism... right?
It isn't surprising that some women want to have a wider forum for discussing things that pertain to women in particular (that is; people that identify as women). Gender equality or not, most women probably have experiences that are different from men in some regards, and vice versa. So how about men have something like a Men's Right's movement, or whatever you want to call it? Nope, they say; we already have this thing called feminism. You shouldn't need anything else. OK, so say you give up on having a male community, even though women can have their own female communities, and try to assimilate into some feminist community. Now you have to just hope that they accept you as an equal, not just as a male ally.
But yeah, feminism is all you'd ever need. A real swiss knife for tackling anything related to gender...
I've called this the Ayn Rand fallacy before. According to rumor[1], Ayn Rand believed that she lived her entire life based upon the principles of rationality, therefore if you disagreed with her you were irrational. Ayn Rand didn't like beards or Mozart, so the men in her circle learned to shave and no one expressed a fondness for Mozart in fear of being deemed irrational. But condemning a bearded man for being irrational because Ayn Rand doesn't like beards says more about Ayn Rand than the bearded man.
Likewise, feminists believe their ideology is based upon the principle of not hating women, therefore disagreement with their ideology amounts to misogyny. But they aren't revealing their interlocutors as misogynists; they're revealing themselves as Ayn Rand.
[1] There is considerable controversy about the lengths to which Ayn Rand would go to condemn people for their irrationality due to personal disagreements, but treat this story as a parable; its literal truth is beside the point.
They've made a determination that supporting their sociological viewpoints is more important than the high potential of social integration issues that will likely come from having raised their child that way. When you prioritize your opinions on social issues ahead of the welfare of your child, to that child's enduring detriment, that's definitely bad parenting. And, depending on who you ask, could be considered abusive.
Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?
You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.
While I certainly advocate that parents have the right to dress their kids in varied styles, I would highly advise against certain styles. "It doesn't matter" perhaps legally, but it does matter socially. (I work in an inner city school; I'm aware of at least two serious suicide comments by kids whose ages are in the single digits, at least partly due to social status.)
Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America.
How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles.
If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.
> very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement
There's a very vocal subset of any group of people that has extreme opinions. Within the feminist movement, the vitriolic anti-male segment has really shrunk since the 1970's, and if anything there is a much bigger subset today that seek to validate and justify traditional gender roles.
In my personal experience, I've encountered a decent number of men who point to innate gender differences to justify the skewed representation of women in engineering. I have also encountered a decent number of feminists who embrace traditional gender roles. I have yet to encounter any feminist of the vitriolic anti-male persuasion, though I read about them in my American Legal History class. In the mainstream media, I've read a few articles along the lines of Susan Patton's regressive letter urging Princeton women to "find a husband" while they had the opportunity to do so at an Ivy League institution, but none of the vitriolic anti-male screeds that people assure me exists.
> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement
It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen.
> only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men.
I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.
It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen.
Hardly.
Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics.
The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies.
Academia has also long been dominated by them.
Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.
Are you saying that the only feminists who count are the ones who cause scandals? I don't follow.
Is this the same viewpoint that says that all Muslims are terrorists because those are the ones that make the news? (Because "Local Mosque-Goers Are Pleasant Neighbors" doesn't sell newspapers.)
Obviously sensationalism sells. But the issue here is that your initial assertion of postmodern feminists being a "tiny and unpopular subsection" is a falsehood. As I said, most popular feminist publications today, both in mainstream journalism and in academia, belong to the former school.
This includes the feminism in the tech industry, the ideology of which is expressed in resources like the Geek Feminism Wiki, perhaps the crown of everything that is wrong with postmodernism summed up into a single anecdotal wiki with virtually no editorial standards beyond "Does it fit in the echo chamber?".
Then, let's face it: when postmodernists and radicals get all the attention, while all the supposed good and moderate feminists receive absolutely none... you have a problem. Your movement is being hijacked. You can underestimate the issue all you want, but the fact is it's the postmodernists who are actually making an influence.
>I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.
Think about it this way: which sex has historically been unequally represented in the most dangerous jobs? And which sex is STILL the only sex that has to sign up for the draft?
"The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength"
While there probably is societal pressures, to suggest that the difference between male and female upper body strength is solely down to physical activity after birth is ludicrous.
Testosterone is an independent factor in muscle mass and accounts for the majority in strength difference. Also, muscles in the upper body have a higher androgen receptor count and therefore respond greater to serum testosterone levels and physical stimuli.
+1. The few women with high testosterone are also better are building muscle, have higher sex drives, and female babies with high testosterone are less interested in faces than things, much like male babies (Baron Cohen at Cambridge, let me hunt a link if you need it)
Very interesting, thanks. I'm always interested in reading up on things along these lines. At this point the amount of studies that show fundamental differences between the sexes are so overwhelming that it's hard to deny it with a straight face. Culture simply does not have the power that people want to attribute to it.
I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes.
What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology.
Why is this even a question? We already know:
- Powerful men tend to be taller than other men
- Women tend to be shorter than men
There's an understood physical difference that is more than likely playing to unbalance social power relations.
You also have a significant problem, when looking back at the historical record, at defining social inequality. Is this a purely formal analysis? If it is than wage gaps are no issue, but economic liberty is overrated. The industrial economy, even though it produces significant social inequality on a substantial level, is very good at hiding it behind formal equality.
But to get to a substantive analysis, one has to look at what people's options in life are. If women can't seek divorce but can murder their husbands with impunity provided that certain cultural fictions remain intact (the case in ancient Athens, see Chris Faraone's "Ancient Greek Love Magic" covering poisonous love potions as a defence against murder, and note too that a purpose of the potions was to abate anger), then the right to divorce is totally subsumed in more substantial, even extreme, options.
If one accepts substantial realities as the measure of equality, then women are less equal today politically and economically than they were in 1800.
And the HN Pedantry Patrol shows up, on schedule. Do we really deal with computers so much that we forget that human communications allow for a certain level of artistic license and flexibility?
I think the point is not doing what you believe to be wrong.
And to have ethics as a group, there needs to be some discussion on what's right and wrong. That might help you to (further) develop your own ethics, and also give you same backup from your peers if you decide to not do something.
No, not for all nouns. But if the noun refers to a person, there are usually two different nouns for each gender and the male form is often used to include females. There are modern attempts to fix this by introducing a new noun (ending) that includes both male and female (or more) genders.
UK does have LTE or 4G as some call it. Not that it is priced attractivly enough for anybody to use it compared to the lovely 3G deals out there. That and some of the 3G services are more than fast enough and I even used 3G for a game tornament few years back and won.
But it is out there and more than one network now - but I live in London so kind of spoilt compared to parts of highland Scotland still to see a mobile signal (lucky peeps).
But as said it is not priced well IMHO and if anything America may well have better price bundles with regards to 4G. Now 3G I think the UK is around 3x cheaper. Heck I get unlimited 3G and SMS and plenty of minutes for £15 a month, never seen anything as close for America. But that is a less dense area and later in the day to get 3G compared to the UK. So maybe they invested into kit that is more cheaply upgraded to 4G basestation wise compared to earlier models. But the UK is after all the size of a whole state in America and with that easier population density wise to cost justify rollouts. Albiet UK goverment flaffing about of spectrum sales and the UK mobile market getting burned by paying over the price for the 3G spectrum many years back (rare rare cose of a goverment selling something of not underpriced, indeed only case I can think of).
So 4G is out there, but price wise - naaa. That said it is not covering the entire UK, though I can find places in the UK which get no mobile signal 2G onwards. Have to love the highlands in Scotland.
I've just integrated all of our 7,000+ products into Amazon and one of the things Amazon is trying to do now is persuade us to use Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA).
It's quite attractive to us as a retailer as they take all the negative feedback, handle returns, etc etc. FBA makes us, as a retailer, look good and saves us money (no shipping costs), while protecting our reputation.
From a logistics point of view it simplifies things immensely (we just need to manage stocks in another warehouse).
I would love to chat with you (email in profile). We have 20,000 products in FBA right now and I've been selling on Amazon for years with separate companies. The only issue is that you can't ship international multichannel yet, even if you get your products approved for Global Export.
The odd thing I see with fulfilled by Amazon is that nothing is necessarily stopping them from buying the goods themselves and selling them in the long run if they see fit.
Amazon logistics in the UK at least seems to be a cover for using a variety of no-name low-cost couriers, which for me at least has resulted in most deliveries now involving at least one fake 'delivery attempt' and needless runaround. I'm starting to buy things elsewhere as a result, it's not worth the hassle.
