Also sexual organs, skeletal-muscle structure, brain structure, hormonal composition, chromosomal composition...
Printable View
Also sexual organs, skeletal-muscle structure, brain structure, hormonal composition, chromosomal composition...
I miss when we were talking about interesting stuff like brain-born biases.
And the differences end there
This is so demonstrably wrong that I can't believe that you even said it. The biological differences between men and women are astounding, and the difference in brain makeup and structure is a good place to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Morphology and sex characteristics are obviousQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Beyond that, the evidence is minimal. How are girl brains different than boy brains?
Seriously, start with the wiring of the amygdala. It's the heart of quick judgement calls on possible emotionally painful scenarios. http://www.livescience.com/4085-emot...men-women.html
I read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence for my understanding, but I know you're not about books so I just googled up the first link I could find.
This tells us nothing about behavior differences. It just gives suggestions for more research avenues. Morphology, especially with the brain, can't be extrapolated that far.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I shouldn't have asked for differences in brain, but differences in mind, fwiw.
The most reliable information we have about innate intelligence, behavioral, and emotional differences between men and women is that none of them have been proven right and most have been proven wrong (except for obvious hormonal ones). That said, some differences probably exist, but we'll likely never find them since cultural differences are abounding and masking.
It gives you something. One whisper of a hint that things might be different. You said none of the evidence bares out any differences and now something challenges that. Are you going to brush it aside, or follow it to see what's up?
I've read a lot of shit about the brain. I even own some expensive books by my boy Santiago Ramon y Cajal, and I would never suggest I know how the brain carries forward the mind carries out behavior, but I think it is a huge mistake to brush aside wiring differences, hormonal differences, and obvious behavioral differences in the name and hope for gender equality.
Holy shit, I never knew rilla was smart. Jokes aside, would that former book (Goleman) be good for a brain noob to read about the differences between men and women, brain-wise?
It's not a brain book. It's an emotions book, which means it covers some parts of the brain. I def recommend it, though it was a hard read for me because the author likes to go on about boring shit imo. It's not really about men vrs women though, just feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Also, flattery will get you everywhere with me.
This was an excerpt from that book, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
That's very nice, ImSavy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathi...emizing_theoryQuote:
According to Baron-Cohen, females on average score higher on measures of empathy and males on average score higher on measures of systemizing. This has been found using the child and adolescent versions of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ), which are completed by parents about their child/adolescent,[6] and on the self-report version of the EQ and SQ in adults.[7]Similar sex differences on average have been found using performance tests of empathy such as facial emotion recognition tasks[8] and on performance tests of systemizing such as measures of mechanical reasoning or 'intuitive physics'.[9]
The internet must be filled with seemingly contradictory links. Who ever could make heads or tails of them?
I'm obviously not saying what I posted is correct it's just something I came across the other day. I actually think it's more likely to be bullshit than true, although it seems a very testable hypothesis. From what I read of your last post though none of that contradicts what was said in that article.
Well, all I'm saying is that in engineering it's mostly dudes and a couple of ladies, and in nursing, I'm told it's the exact opposite. In a world with perfectly equal opportunities for both genders, I expect that to still hold.
http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2013/03...minated-majors
And I'm betting gender differences, including those of the brain, have something to do with it.
I think there is some confusion here. Psychology and behavior studies are nearly worlds apart from other biological studies. Sometimes not, sometimes so.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It has to be taken for what it is. Behavior-oriented research is very difficult since so much of this other type of stuff can never be extrapolated onto it.Quote:
It gives you something. One whisper of a hint that things might be different. You said none of the evidence bares out any differences and now something challenges that. Are you going to brush it aside, or follow it to see what's up?
What scientists know today is that cultural differences between the genders are sometimes huge, and we have very little evidence showing biological causality for the differences. Additionally, we know that many prejudices about differences are washed away when the cultural pressure is neutralized.
It was once absolutely true that girls were dumb. They were bad at book stuff, bad at academics. They were bad at sports. They were emotionally weak. You couldn't shake a stick at all the things that we used to believe about females based on their biology that today we know is purely cultural.
Today we are seeing a hefty surge in women becoming more like regular people than we once thought. The success of all sorts of things that are thought to not be things women are supposed to like (*cough* Avengers *cough*) is so high because women like them. I find it specious to claim that women aren't into things like Aliens when loads of women are into The Walking Dead.
A long time ago my mom was watching Aliens because it just happened to be on and she didn't know what it was. She was glued. Ripley was an enticing character to her. But then I told her she was watching Aliens and she realized she "doesn't like that sort of thing", so she stopped watching it. She hadn't seen any aliens yet or any action. It was mere cultural conditioning that provoked her to be the girly person she has always been told she has to be.
Have to agree with Wufs posts about a lot of the culture over nature.
This shit ruined football. Before the NFL tried to court the lady viewer, no one cared if some wideout beat his wife or a QB had brain damage. Now that it needs to be a safe sport, a family sport, Adrian Peterson gets sidelined for spanking his kid and you can rough passer from 7 yards out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The Patrioits never win if football was still a MANs game!
But seriously, I don't have anything to add about culture. All I know is that girls and boys are different in body, mind, and all that follows imo. There are ranges and shit, bells curves, but standard man vrs standard women.. they're different.
This is a debate I don't want to have. I'll just state for the record that I think the differences in engineering and nursing for the sexes is 100% cultural.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Here's my n=1: the primary difference I see between the women I know schooling in engineering and those who aren't is that the ones doing engineering were raised to believe that they can and should do it if they like it. Funny that a hefty number of them were homeschooled.
Hell I was reading an article the other day about why Asians do so much better in math competition than other races even in the US. It pretty much boils down to the prejudice that Asians are naturally better at math, so many qualified talent from other races don't even apply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4#t=22m30s
1 day old girls look at faces, 1 day old boys look at mechanical objects.
100% culture that.
I didn't read much of the debate but I hate this post. 100%? Seriously? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT? Why do you go to the extremes with your argument? You're leaving no room for counter-arguments which makes arguing against you shitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Women just have nurturing in their fucking biological make-up. Women in computer science classes are bored as fuck in their classes and, quite honestly, usually suck ass at coding. Fuck it, I said it. They have no interest in it. It's not because they can't. It's because they're bored.
But hell, every coding bootcamp in the world is giving them a free pass to learn anyway. Still waiting for my free pass as a male to get into secretary school. Yup, that part was sexist. Fuck it.
That video took me forever to find. I was starting to think I had never seen it.
Assuming this is true, it still can't be used as causality for something like engineering vs nursing. Take the world of genetics for example. Today scientists believe that even when some genes may point in the direction of certain types of behaviors for certain people, the environment is still the decider.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Even if there are innate differences where women gravitate towards nursing and men towards engineering, environmental factors are so powerful that it is entirely plausible that some environments would select for men to gravitate towards nursing and women towards engineering.
Even in the realm of sexual preferences, where there appear to be strong biological differences, we know that isn't exactly the case. Polyandry kinda blows it out of the water. Or look at how much the West likes tits. Biologists don't use evolutionary determinism, and what we know of all different types of sexual preferences in different cultures suggests that the appreciation of tits is cultural.
And what the fuck is with more than one gender showing up on applications and forms now? Seriously? EVEN CHOOSING BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE OFFENDS PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!? Since when are people offended about EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!
Because it works. People will modify their behavior to not offend you because they're civil and want to be a part of the group. Stupid assholes abuse that to the point where:
http://i.imgur.com/3MdC2vA.jpg
You caught my colloquial style seeping. "100%" technically can't be true since we can't even quantify any of this. So yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
As for women getting babied in coding, they probably get it because they're thought to be less good and in need of babying. They should have to get by on their merits just like anybody else. Ofc if we get into gender issues, this isn't just an example of women being treated poorly but men as well.
I say it's entirely cultural because culture is the deciding factor. Even if one gender is naturally better at something intellectually, education levels and intellectual skill levels are learned. I think the modern world is so complex and artificial that "innate" talents are pretty much totally overridden. The amount of quantitative analysis women have to do is far greater than any man did 10k years ago. Furthermore, we don't even know what real differences there are between different kinds of intelligences. Like we don't actually know if there is any fundamental difference between the smarts it takes to do law and the smarts it takes to do math.
I've had some dumb ones too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Also I like how when transexuals wear heels and skirts, they're empowering themselves, but when women do it, they're sluts.
Y'all should watch Transparent on Amazon. Don't go into it looking for a comedy though. It's not that funny. It's still good TV though.
So I'm dating. Also, I enjoy Brooklyn as a borough. Add those two together and: I've gotten into initial conversations where I was screened out because I "believed in gender." Am I that much of a brute to not understand WHAT THE FUCK that meant? Meh, fuck it. She was genderless anyway. Sex would've gotten weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Why did you skip over this wuf? This is a very apt critique of your debate style. I only thing BooG got the last sentence wrong. Your hyperbole makes your argument weak, because all that needs to be shown is that a fraction of a percent of the time it isn't cultural. It really doesn't even need to be shown, it can just be assumed since your supporting evidence is pretty much vapid drivel for how strong of a claim you're making.
All arguments are empty, there is only evidence.
I would go with the path of least resistance. Even though women COULD become amazing engineers while the men became amazing nurses, it's more likely for the water to flow downhill.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Both of my parents are engineers btw and my mother is female, so it's not like I haven't experienced a woman's ability at a seemingly male calling before.
I didn't glaze over it. I addressed it specifically. I said that my saying "100%" is technically wrong, and then I explained the logic for why it can still be contextually appropriate, which is that if nurture is the deciding factorQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
It's my bad for saying "100%" because it is confusing.
Are engineering careers that male dominated that you have to clarify your mum has a vagina?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
You didn't like that line? Bleh, I'll get you next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Well, evidence has to be interpreted.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'm a little surprised at all the disagreement this generated because the contemporary interpretation of the evidence by specialists is that it appears that the reason women don't gravitate towards math type stuff is cultural.
I mean, okay, I'm a guy, and I am much worse at math on an inherent level than several women I know. If it is true that the male gender is better at math than the female gender, then it strongly suggests that my situation is not possible or at least is unlikely.
There are not that many women who are stronger than men because the morphology differences are real enough. But there are tons of women who are smarter than men. You'd think that if men were inherently smarter than women, the discrepancy between the genders intellectually would look like it does with physical morphology. But it doesn't. The way it looks now is the way it would look if there isn't an inherent difference but instead an environmental one.
You may have missed the discussion where gender is offensive nowadays. There are like five different gender choices in 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
lol man when i register for classes i have to pick between like 14 different gender preferences. there isn't even a "male" option, but a "masculine" option.
Please. All these studies are being funded by the 2015 pussies that will never allow for any inequality amongst anyone to surface. I can't fathom having all these hormonal differences with women and being physiologically the same. I don't want to use the word impossible but...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Meh, using your shitty math brain as a sample means nothing and shouldn't even be mentioned in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Did someone suggest men are inherently smarter? Where? That would be dumb. What IS true is that men and women have differences in intelligence and expertise.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ha, I just made that quote up. But seriously, I do bunny ears. I'm so bad at tying my shoe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There are a lot of interpretations of the same data set, a lot of ways to connect the dots. I like to start with 'I don't know' and try to latch onto the few torch-bearing bits I can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
When I see that 1 day old boys prefer mechanical system, and 10000 day old boys tend to be technical over empathetic in their career and the opposite is true of women, I build from there.
1 day old helps block out the culture and cut down on the complexity loads.
Ugh, I remember in Korea this fucking feminist girl (who actually didn't care enough to keep up with any news from Ferguson but was on top of all the feminist bullshit; who cares about the blacks, right?) gave me shit because I said the phrase "Man up." MAN UP. I can't say "man up," any more because that means being brave and courageous and shit? Can't we all just admit we're getting too fucking touchy?
Not saying the same. All sorts of really different people like similar things for different reasons. This started with the claim that women should like Aliens then the counterclaim that it's not their style. I think the fact that women like The Walking Dead put that to rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
looooolllllllQuote:
Meh, using your shitty math brain as a sample means nothing and shouldn't even be mentioned in this discussion.
Seriously, I think it means everything. It is an example, which fits for everybody, of the enormous differences in talents based purely on nurture. Nature is lost in it. If nature is the deciding factor for psychology or intellect, we would see stark contrasts like with physical morphology. Which we don't.
Well, if it's expertise then it's nurture. If it's intelligence, I'd like to see how.Quote:
Did someone suggest men are inherently smarter? Where? That would be dumb. What IS true is that men and women have differences in intelligence and expertise.
Put ten men in a room. Then pick a different room and put ten women. Then learn everything there is to learn about the people in the rooms. Then find that the differences between each of the individual men or each of the individual women are vastly greater than the differences between the men as a group compared to the women as a group.Quote:
Ha, I just made that quote up. But seriously, I do bunny ears. I'm so bad at tying my shoe.
We could hardly even evaluate psychological gender differences if we wanted to. They're small blips unseen because they're coupled with huge spikes of other non-innate factors.
I don't get why it makes you so angry that people might want to identify as something different to you.
Angry's a bad word for it. I just find it a bit ridiculous that even the "male/female" checkbox has become controversial in today's social environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Why are you counting rilla's 1-day old study for nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That is compelling evidence for sureQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It should be kept in mind that this sort of biological determinism almost never holds up in complex environments. It's more of a genetic suggestion than anything.
I've never seen a form go into such detail tbh, care to give a real example? I'm curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Worst thing I have to deal with when filling stuff in is whether to put England or UK on things. Doesn't really work when one is a subset of the other but people would make a fuss if one wasn't there.
It's a good one. I'm more pointing out that contemporary biologists in behavioral fields are very cautious of biological determinismQuote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Seriously, my bad, I must have missed that post some how. This discussion has moved pretty fast. Sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If we were discussion evolution vs creationism, you would have just said, "My daddy's daddy wadn't no monkey!"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I feel like you fail to see that you have taken the much harder position in saying that biology plays no role, or that any role it does play is washed away by nurture. If biology only plays a 1% role, that is not only enough to tip the scales and nudge people one way, but more importantly, given time, we could expect it to steer culture to reinforce its small influence.
I'll admit that we don't actually know, and that we likely will never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The two main points for my stance are as such: (1) for behavioral issues, there aren't any biological markers we can point to and say "he is like that because he's a guy" or "she is like that because she's a girl". However, there are many cultural factors we can use to explain those differences. (2) The arc of history continually trends towards us being surprised that our prejudices about innate differences between groups of people are wrong. It's not unique to gender. We used to think black people are naturally dumber than whites and we currently think Asians are naturally better at math. Both of which are not true.
Right, and the counter is that while the brain has no physical differences across races, across genders it very much does. To assume that a brain with a significantly different structure would not excel in some areas and fall short in other areas... I mean, why would we disregard this?
Should we let it pigeon hole people due to their gender? No. But we shouldn't force a square peg in a round hole just to be politically correct.
I think the probability that morphological differences in the brain are a product of culture -- like the claims in the article Imsavy posted -- is much higher than otherwise. The plasticity of the brain is kinda off the charts. Some of the known differences have no known effects, like size and matter type. Other differences in function that seem apparent -- like spatial proficiency -- are mostly postulated to be a result of nurture e.g. boys grow up playing sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Male and female fetus' are known to have physical differences in brain structure, and this is just what we can see from an ultrasound.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-brains-differ
Matter type has plenty of known differences. I can't figure out why you're being a retard on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also:
http://www.wxii12.com/image/view/-/3...invite-jpg.jpg
Glad to see you're coming around.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Known differences but no known effects on the minds of the sexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm being such a "retard" on this because I'm backing up contemporary consensus on biology. The field is easily the most complex in existence, and things that appear to most people to be related -- like morphology of the brains of the sexes equaling to personality differences -- is not something biologists can extrapolate. Behavior and psychology are only tangentially related to some of the more robust biological fields. It is where if a study is done on diabetics, it has very little to no extrapolation elements onto non-diabetics. As interesting as something like men and women having different brains in some ways is, we absolutely cannot say its causative of behavior differences.
What we know today is that culture is likely to override any genetic disposition towards certain behaviors. There is yet to be demonstrated any empirical evidence that somebody's personality is the way it is because of sex. Yet we are overwhelmed with evidence that environment actively molds the way people are.
Take Rilla's study for an example of why biologists cannot extrapolate that far. If male babies look at mechanical objects more and female babes look at faces more, we have no idea what that means. We don't know if that tendency translates to other ages or if it completely disappears at some point. We don't know if that tendency is easily neutralized by standard variability in nurture. We don't even know if looking at mechanics instead of faces actually means that one is better at understanding mechanics.
But what we do know is that when it comes to personalities, genetics is pretty much just a suggestion and environment is king.
we know this? Where are your sources? Do you just make things up?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't have links because it's just forgotten sources I've come across over the last several years.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Many psychologists have believed that for a long period of time, and recently geneticists and neuroscientists have started coming around on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I12H7khht7o
It's worth the watch considering the convo
Then your research is lacking, but with the way you are about things, I have no doubt that you'll figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Edit: A good place to start is the different mating strategies than men and women have as a result of their biology.
Hey look, a source that goes against Wuf's lack of.
I've stated several times that sexual preferences are among the most genetic dispositions probable. Of course, I'm unsure how much so since they too appear to be heavily cultural. There are some batty mating strategies in some cultures. I'd have to know more about them to give an assessment of how much is cultural, but some of them are so wacky that they involve knees being the most seductive part of the body, pederasty as the core, or polyandry.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What are some personality traits that are genetically female?
Hypergamy in women (compared to polygamy in men).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, sexual preferences != sexual strategies. Moreover, you'll find plenty of homosexual and inter-species sex in other species.
Which one? Rilla's? It doesn't. It's pretty great too. Contemporary psychology tends to view his situation as somebody who has a predisposition that is modified by environment. Additionally, like in the link Imsavy posted, we don't actually know if that predisposition is learned. On the genetic level (which that video isn't about), it gets even screwier. Geneticists will be the first to say that genes are not deterministic and that they're weirder than anybody thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Brain scans do not solve the chicken or egg dilemma. Neuroplasticity is crazy stuff. Brain structure changes all the time. People who get paralyzed lose the structure that allows them to walk. People who learn the piano gain structure that knows how to play piano.
I'll hit on one line from the wikiQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
First off, evolutionary determinism is taboo. Biologists shy from it because it's not scientific, but it is still a useful tool to use in pursuit of scientific research. It's like how postulating where to find an evolutionary link in the fossil record isn't scientific data but a tool that gets used to find the data.Quote:
Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival.
Second, baked into the quoted is environmental drivers. It's why, as there is less pressure on females to marry resources, females marry resources less. Hypergamy is a trait found disproportionately in females over males, for sure, but that doesn't mean it's genetically female. Hell, some theory about pre-civilization humans is that both polygamy and hypergamy were not normally practiced. IIRC most of the backing for this has been found in jungle tribes unaffiliated with civilization.
It should be noted that we're not even sure if marriage is something pre-agriculture humans did. There is reason to believe that humans "naturally" have relationships more like bonobos (group bondings instead of pair bondings).
Would you guys ever date a stripper?
Yes, but not with the intention of settling down. Like, itd be just a fun thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
I'd date JKDS just for fun. Just one date. And no touching.
I'd date you too boog, but you can touch me.
it is a good idea to spend time with people who make your life better.
i am using way too many periods these days. frickin boog.
Grunching here, but wuf, you seem to be pressing this argument that because of the difficulty of running an experiment on the causality of biology on behavior that the easier to study causality is the only causality. I was half joking about calling your argument tantamount to "my granddaddy wasn't no stinkin ape!", but I think you are very close to making the "missing link" argument.
Even so you don't even stick to your guns as you can continually be seen saying that whatever causality biology does affect on behavior, experience trumps it. Do you not realize that you are forfeiting here? If there is causality from biology, whether it can be overridden by experience or not, it will show in aggregate since all things being equal, more of gender A will tend to behave one way. And that's not even taking into account that once a gender, in aggregate, behaves one way, culture is likely to reinforce the behavior.
I've dated a stripper. She also did page 3. Suck it bitches!
Dated? Well we had a couple of drinks on two occasions.
And she wasn't exactly hot
Who the fuck puts not hot women on page 3?
Would you guys ever marry a hooker?
It wasn't the sun page 3, it was the sport. Perhaps a slight exaggeration on my behalf.
Only if she's ridiculously rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Would you rather marry a porn star or a hooker? I mean the only difference is how many people saw it. And possibly average dick size experienced.
I imagine porn stars are better about having safe sex. Porn star.
Yeah I don't think they're called "page 3" girls in the sport, just page girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I'd date a hooker, but I wouldn't have sex with her unless she quit. My idea of safe sex is her taking the pill, condoms are fucking horrible. Plus, it's a matter of loyalty. I realise a hooker is not usually enjoying sex with her clients, but that's besides the point. I'm not overly jealous, but I'd have a serious problem with other men putting their dicks into my gf's vagina. So, a hooker would need to demonstrate her love for me by finding alternative employment before a serious relationship can begin.
Porn stars are hookers with a more glamourous job title.
Stripper? no
Porn star v hooker? Porn star, especially if she's part of a regulated industry, she probably invest more in keeping herself healthy.
Porn star, then? no
I felt pretty whore-like working in a carpentry shop. The work was physical, and the management bent us over at every opportunity.
Anyone wanna buy me dinner?
A cheap holiday in other people's misery. - Will Self on the news. I look that.
A cheeky lift? Or a struggle for life?
http://www.independent.co.uk/incomin...ker-weasel.jpg
@ong: That's awesome!
***
I read two phrases in the past 30 minutes that lead me to believe that I'm a racist...
Russian environmentalist
Chinese comedian
I never pieced those words together before and my brain literally stopped and went, "what, now?" both times.
I'm a bad person, clearly.
Not so awesome when you realise the weasel is trying to kill the woodpecker. Well actually it's still awesome, but brutal.
The woodpecker escaped.
I don't think you can be racist towards the Russians. Xenophobic, yes, but not racist. They mostly white Caucasian.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I can't help your conscience when it comes to the Chinese though, other than to say that it's hard to be racist towards a superior race of people.
I've read the rest of your posts but still needs to be said.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
pics of gtfo
Somebody explain to me this "you can't be racist against Whites" ideology. I never understood it and this is not the first time I've heard it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's a semantical thing. What they mean is that racism implies systemic oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/0...Reverse-Racism
The bolds are mine, as I think they're the most salient.Quote:
Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype. Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it's for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people. The important thing is they just don't like them -- in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief. You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you're careful not to act on your irrational dislike.
Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice. This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation. Or even because of their looks (there's a lot of hiring discrimination against "unattractive" women, for example). You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you're in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against. White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.
Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as "normal" throughout an entire culture. It's based on an ideological belief that one "race" is somehow better than another "race". It's not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.