This question came to me when I was designing the culture of a fictional country.  I was wondering outside of the life sciences, why do we use gender, and should we keep it in our daily lives.  In my own view the division of people by physical gender is pointless and serves only to create conflict.

Views: 1139

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I’m sorry for your difficulties, but your evidence for unemployment fraud is anecdotal and doesn’t generalize very well.  I have my own anecdotal evidence to refute yours; I have known many people who used unemployment benefits for the temporary leg-up they are intended to be.  They returned to work when it became available and felt better being productive again, as I’m sure you did.

So let’s look at some quick stats about unemployment.  In 2011, the government paid out $108B in unemployment benefits.  $3.3B (3%) were paid out dishonestly; of that, about 2/3 were paid dishonestly to people who were still working paying jobs.  So much for fraud due to laziness.  $3.3B is a lot of money, no doubt, but let’s put it in some perspective.  In 2011, Exxon received nearly $4B in government subsidies and turned a profit of about $40B.  That’s just one company taking more government handouts than ALL of the fraudulent unemployment recipients combined.

I didn’t mean to “suck you into” this type of discussion.  You opened the door with your comments about atheists and liberalism.  Then you wanted to shut the door to responses.

Conservatism means keeping things the way they are, or even rolling them back to the way they were in the good old days.  You self-identified as conservative.  With that identity comes some baggage; namely the major historical social developments in this country which conservatives were clearly against: independence, abolition, suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.  As a conservative, which of those would you do away with so we can return to the good old days?

  1. Thanks, but my 2 unemployment stints were once in my early 20’s and once in my late 20’s. I like to think that I have a little more integrity than that now, but I couldn’t promise you that, to a much lesser degree, it wouldn’t happen again, if I weren’t to find a new job in, say the first month or so. As I said, that how it works you’re getting free money with very little risk of consequence for a lack of due diligence, and a lack of stigma attached to living on the dole. Yes, my evidence is anecdotal, and I’ve seen enough during those episodes and from others since in my years to tell you that it does generalize well. I’m not saying that it’s how everybody does it, or that even a large percentage does, but I’m telling you that it’s a much larger percent than those of your thinking ever allow yourselves to admit. Your anecdotal evidence is just as valid and the majority would do just as you described that you’ve seen, but, to various degrees, I would bet, depending on how driven the people you’ve been exposed to are, at least some of those have at least taken a week or two off during their unemployment stretch. The numbers you cite, like statistics, are just silly. First off, you cite the people who’ve been caught, and, as I told you, it isn’t at all hard not to get caught. Secondly, you reference a different kind of fraud than I did. I referred to the conditioned response of apathy, when it doesn’t cost someone much, if anything (in terms of money, effort, or reputation), to be fed, housed, educated, etc, through various (almost an infinite amount of them out there) entitlement programs. I just don’t understand how your, or anyone’s, life experience allows you to deny this.

  2. To be fair to me, I didn’t open this door. As I said in my opening rant on this thread, I’d been seeing political shots to the right (at least 1 by you, I think), and I was responding in a way that was saying “Hey, you lefties aren’t the only ones in the room, you know”. I also have not shut the door to responses. I clearly stated that, after I wrote what I initially wrote, I would take my medicine and take my beating graciously, and that I would actually read them all, as opposed to “taking my ball and going home”, so to speak. I threw out a general statement of what I believe to be a true basic flaw in leftward thinking, and I expected general shots back, but you want to engage me into specific issues, and I’m trying to avoid that abyss. Witness the marathon that was going on between Gallup & Dr. Bob that was starting to turn nasty. I’m very surprised it stopped actually, but that not what I want to do. Maybe I’ll get out of this burnout stage later, and I would probably enjoy debating with you, as you are intelligent, and, more importantly, civil.

  3. While I didn’t respect this particular subject matter (What is the purpose of gender) I always try to respect that it is the originator’s thread and all entries should relate to that original subject. “If not, start your own topic” is my thinking. In other words, I don’t like hijacking someone’s discussion, as I would not like someone hijacking mine.

Fair enough.

I remember from a period of involuntary unemployment looking at jobs that simply would have fulfilled my obligation to find work but that would have been a trap, making it difficult if not impossible to get back to where I was and that I certainly didn't want on my resume.

I'd far rather take a couple temporary jobs if I could find them, paid under the table so I could meet my rent, utilities, and other basic obligations and expenses, and put the period down as a period of "education" or "consulting" on my resume. And sometimes that consulting can become a new freelance career.

The legislators simply don't have a solution to this sort of problem, so people do engage in—if not active cheating—at least gaming the system a bit.

There will always be people whose whole approach to the system is to find ways to cheat it outrightly. This is a little different from learning the rules and doing some gaming with every intention of getting back into the workforce.

It was decided by nature long before there was a social consciousness. Isn’t this self-evident, as it is with just about every mammal? 

Yes it does seem self-evident that we evolved into gender roles by necessity and based on physiological differences.  But we evolved lots of "habits" or tendencies by necessity and based on physiological differences, e. g. survival of the strong and subjugation of the weak.  We have used rationality and social conscience to try to break those habits, e. g. we developed a constitution and laws to protect everyone.  I think the point is to consider whether our current ideas about gender roles are still necessary and whether they will still be relevant as we move forward as a species.

Well, of course I don't speak of barefoot, pregnant and over the stove women, and grunting, hunting philandering men, but there are going to be very basic roles (that are NOT absolute) that are more suited do the differences that we have. Unless there's a personal agenda attached, I just don't see how anyone can look objectively at nature, in general, and not see that we are just another species of animal and that there are differences (besides sexual organs), and therefore, certain roles that we fall into naturally.

Symbiosis, yin yang, parts to create a whole. Men think with their dick, bold, risk-taking. Women think with their womb, risk-averse, nest-oriented. For reproduction and a nurturing environment, men complement women and women complement men. In general. 

Agreed---as always, though---to a point, in general, and, of course, not absolute.

Biologically speaking gender genetically promotes diversity to promote higher chances of survival in a species. Socially its become a way to segregate people on the basis of what they have between their legs, and it has become political, with the influence of religious dogma with the male gender being made more dominant over the female. 

Being born intersexed has made life difficult for me because I am neither gender or both of the genders, with society and its structure to force me to choose a gender. What was worse with religious indoctrination of my parents from believing its dogma of being born with sin, they felt to correct this by requesting that I would undergo forced surgery into the gender of their choice so I would fit in society socially but especially appear fit for the religious establishment known as the christian church.

From having experienced life like this, I think human beings should be treated equally and also be given the chance to integrate with organisations and institutions such as freemasonry without any gender bias, since freemasonry is the cult that gave men access to the best employment in companies and banks, the best political positions… it gave them more wavering chances of being successful in life regardless on how theistically superstitiously stupid freemasonry actually is.

I sympathize with the cards you were dealt, but yours is a special case, an aborraton, if you will. You know that, though, right. The question pertained to humanity's reality. I don't take the position of what should be, only what is and always will be. It's what we are, and that which we can not change, we should accept.

I can't simply accept something that promotes discrimination and segregation. 

Not supporting gender is like not supporting legs or ears.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service