The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[Eldevern]

...

What a joke. Neo-feminists are the first who clame genders exist when it is time to attack feminity or masculinity as soon as it serves their purpose.

Women must do more craftmanships!
Women must have access to scientific studies!

The problem is... Sweden case do the demonstration that when they have a "free" choice, in cultures where women are the less influenced by stereotypes, they will choose this kind of activities neo-feminist accuse "patricarchy" to call feminine and to "lock" women in.
In Asia, it is the whole opposite. Many women who have access to studies at high level will choose sciences and to be engineer.

Based on neo-feminist claming, this kind of thing is just totally impossible and shouldn't exist/happen.

What you call "objectivity" against "patriarchal" construction IS a construction too and it's not even half objective. It is just another biais, a non assumed misandrie. Neo-feminists just want to play some kind of amazon game but don't assume it.

You are just playing with words to protect your unobjective militancy.

There is nothing to construct or to deconstruct, just to let people choose what they want based on their tastes (as soon as they respect laws, of course). Nothing more, nothing less.

The worst, in fine, they clame they want to imitate men in what they have worst : these damn stupid ego games. These games, as a man, I've always despised since they are most of time only utterly plain stupid.

[jameseoakes]

What a joke. Neo-feminists are the first who clame genders exist when it is time to attack feminity or masculinity as soon as it serves their purpose.

Women must do more craftmanships!
Women must have access to scientific studies!

The problem is... Sweden case do the demonstration that when they have a "free" choice, in cultures where women are the less influenced by stereotypes, they will choose this kind of activities neo-feminist accuse "patricarchy" to call feminine and to "lock" women in.
In Asia, it is the whole opposite. Many women who have access to studies at high level will choose sciences and to be engineer.

Based on neo-feminist claming, this kind of thing is just totally impossible and shouldn't exist/happen.

What you call "objectivity" against "patriarchal" construction IS a construction too and it's not even half objective. It is just another biais, a non assumed misandrie. Neo-feminists just want to play some kind of amazon game but don't assume it.

You are just playing with words to protect your unobjective militancy.

There is nothing to construct or to deconstruct, just to let people choose what they want based on their tastes (as soon as they respect laws, of course). Nothing more, nothing less.

The worst, in fine, they clame they want to imitate men in what they have worst : these damn stupid ego games. These games, as a man, I've always despised since they are most of time only utterly plain stupid.

where do you get this drivel from

[Joven]

where do you get this drivel from

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

[jameseoakes]

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

[Joven]

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

Technically the burden of proof lies with you to disprove me.

On what exactly are calling drivel though? The idea that men and women are different and therefore interested in different things? The ideology believing otherwise?

Look up David Reimer as an example of how someone is raised doesn't change their nature.

[jameseoakes]

Technically the burden of proof lies with you to disprove me.

On what exactly are calling drivel though? The idea that men and women are different and therefore interested in different things? The ideology believing otherwise?

Look up David Reimer as an example of how someone is raised doesn't change their nature.

I don't have to prove anything to you, your making up dangerous drivel to just justify outdated ideas on women and it's messed up. If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

[Melichoir]

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

Tabula Rasa - The idea that humans are blank slates at birth and that everything humans do is learned from experience.

The issue with some schools of modern feminism is that gender roles are all social constructs, and that the reason why men gravitate towards certain fields of study (or life goals) and women gravitate towards other is cause society teaches women to be a certain way and men to be another in an attempt to keep society patriarchal and beneficial to men explicitly at the the cost to women. Most fields of Psychology (with credible studies) generally find this outlook to be incorrect. Men and women on average have slightly different drives and interests. It is why when you look at the fields women do gravitate towards in STEM tend to be different than men. Men averagely tend to be more object orientated, women more social orientated. This doesnt mean that all men or women, just when looking at broad groupings and trends.

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

It's not. When you look at countries that are higher on the index of personal freedoms and choices between the sexes, you see more divergence in life choices.

In layman's terms, in a country like Sweden which does it's damnedest to remove any obstacles of opportunity for sexes, you find a greater divergence in interests and subsequently job choices compared to countries that have less options to choose from (either due to societal or resource pressures.) So as an example, you see closer parity in job choices in China than you would in Swedan. It is something that has been infuriating some of the more left wing sections of the government, because the more they try to get a 50/50 representation in fields by trying to drive or incentivize more personal choice, the gap widens.

Evolutionary Psychology tends to attribute this towards survival setup of our species.

[Driavna]

If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

The more reason to disprove him, particularly in a public forum like this one. A perfect opportunity to ensure others are exposed to the truth I say.

[Ammokkx]

I don't have to prove anything to you, your making up dangerous drivel to just justify outdated ideas on women and it's messed up. If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

"dangerous"

Is it dangerous to claim that women and men, who have been scientifically proven to have neuron links in their brain which work fundamentally differently(and thus explaining why trans people exist, as their brains are wired to be that of the opposite gender), would have inherently differing interests? Nobody is claiming women can't be interested in typically male-oriented interests or the other way around. And, yes, culture does partially explain gender roles. But to claim that there is no fundamental difference is just disingenuous, and does actually harm the idea that trans people can be, y'know, a thing.

Our brains don't work the same way for both sexes. This is objectively true. Where it gets dangerous is trying to determine exactly what those differences are and then forcing individual people to conform to it against their will. Yes, we shouldn't force people to identify in a certain way or force our cultural norms on people... but that doesn't mean there aren't differences. There are, they're just not tangible enough to be a consistent rule across every single person.

[Eldevern]

Drivel? What do you call drivel?

Because some american theorie claim women and men as gender don't exist, they would be only a "construction" it makes it a truth?

What about Christopher Dummitt who admits he falsified his conclusions in order to promote his political views?

About Sweden and Asia, I don't have to prove it, all these statistics are public. Just search them by yourself.

All these theories coming from the left-wing hippies have proven nothing.

Women and men don't share the same interest... neither all women or all men share the same interest. Gender studies don't assume they follow the model they decry. It is so hyronical. You want to do some kind of deconstruction? Start with doing the deconstruction of the deconstruction, you will realize how it is the other side of the same piece.