On Female Needs and Star Trek

What follows started as an email response to Joey on Sunday, then turned into a blog post, then I didn't post it and went to bed.

----

This is why I don't write anymore.

Because women need to be desired to be aroused? No.

I don't write much because you have to manufacture an opinionated topic in order to gain any sort of interest.

This author could have written a more balanced piece about the role of external sexual interest in a persons sexual self-confidence, and contrasted some of the likely minor differences between men and women. But instead, she writes a heavily biased article with the tired tropes of support for "most real women" (read as not angry feminists) and revolution against "political correctness" (which doesn't exist anywhere, it's a strawman).

Of course you can't just write a piece stating that human sexuality is an almost infinitely complex thing, with as many different motives and responses as there are human beings. That would be accurate, intellectually useful, and likely not sensational enough to generate page views.

Instead, massive generalization is used to foster animosity, and reduce the level of the discourse to a point where the entire populace can find something to take a stand for or against. No real benefit can come from this discussion now, it's reduced to a political/religious type argument where people just opine angrly at one another, and no progress is made to finding out anything new about human nature. All we're doing now is reinforcing the most well known of human traits, generalization and discrimination in order to support one's own life choices and values.

And that's just the article structure. The subject itself is also offensive in more specific ways.

You, as a woman, are proporting to speak for the other 3.5 billion registered uterus-drivers on this planet? Really? You are saying that regardless of the obvious diversity of sexuality across continents and cultures, you've finally gotten to the heart of the matter with no scientific analysis or even so much as a web survey. I may be supposed to infer that the likely target of this article, and the one you are speaking on behalf of is the same 30-55 white female demographic that you are part of, but that isn't mentioned anywhere. After all, proper qualification and speciation of your point would dilute it's provocative intent.

So you've managed to establish yourself as the visionary for your gender. What do you do now? Reinforce traditional gender stereotypes which are specific to your own insecurities of course!

It really couldn't be any more transparent. It would be like me stating that ALL men inherently, genetically, and without any ability to self-moderate, really only want women who will have sex while watching Star Trek. And like it.

And then I'd claim that any men who claim this isn't specifically true for them are just fooling themselves. Just admit it. You want to do it while watching the saucer-section separate. I KNOW that you do, because I do, and I'm a normal man. You, also being a normal man, must also want this. Unless you're some kind of freak.

There is no doubt that the degree to which a person receives sexual attention will effect their sex drive, but so will an untold number of other things. And if you want to write an article about how, FOR YOU, this external validation is the primary driver of your libido, that's great.

But don't try give one of your own insecurities a higher level of perceived legitimacy by trying to tie it your entire gender as a whole.

And don't artificially polarize a subject just for page views. There are enough genuine problems that could use discussion, we don't need to make up new ones.

Values, opinions, and arguments

I have opinions, I don't really have any values. At least not in the sense that some of our neighbors to the south tend to use the phrase. I'd say that they would define values essentially as beliefs that are tied more some kind of faith or 'truth' than to evidence. Values are core beliefs that you cling to for strength, and are usually unchanging and inflexible.

If that definition is accurate, no one should have values, they should just have opinions.

by MissBlythe

Opinions can change, opinions can be revised, and values cannot. Values are never wrong. And for me, being able to admit that you are wrong is one of the fundamental qualities of an intelligent person.

You shouldn’t hold an opinion because you like that point of view, you should hold an opinion because the evidence points in that direction. And should that evidence change, your opinion should change with it.

Having an opinion that is not subject to revision upon the discovery of new evidence (aka 'values') means that that opinion is based on faith and dogma, not logic and reason. It’s the difference between finding evidence to fit your theory, and finding a theory to fit the evidence. It’s the difference between religion and science.


by Mike Babcock

Once you've formed an opinion you need to evaluate it using an arguement and that's where things get difficult again. Most people don't know how to argue and it ends up causing 90% of the conflict in this world and my life.

Having a meaningful argument with a useful resolution is dependent upon agreeing on some common evidence and common truths as a foundation for the argument. This is why arguments about religion don’t go anywhere, because you’re arguing from different foundations. One person is claiming that only that which can be measured is valid, and the other person believes in magic and unicorns. There is no common ground.


by calium

For a different, more subtle example, Person A says to me “Women make 25% less than men for the same work”. Then I’d say, “Well I read two studies that both showed that once you control for other factors (children, family life, differing priorities) there is only about 10-12% that can be attributed purely to sexism.” Then Person A says “Yes but the entire society and scientific system was created by men and therefore has a built in bias against women”. And the argument is wreaked.

That last bit basically destroys the ability to even continue the argument because it removes any common foundation. Person A has claimed that all of society, and therefore any evidence coming from that society, is suspect. So nothing I say, and nothing Person A says is useful anymore. It’s like the nuclear weapon of arguments, it just destroys everything, no one wins. And it’s pointless, Person A hasn’t accomplished anything other than to prove that they don’t know how to argue a point to a meanful resolution.


by teaeff

The funny thing is, most people don't realize that the foundation of the argument has been destroyed at that point and the argument is now unwinable. Most people (myself included) will frequently allow the argument to continue off into some deeper existential debate, or onto another subject entirely. They may not realize that whatever they started arguing about is off the rails and is not going to go anywhere at this point. Because if you can't agree on a common point of reference and stick to that then there is no argument, there is just yelling.

But they'll keep trying. They'll just keep yelling and the person who yells the loudest wins. That doesn’t mean they've resolved anything. It doesn't mean that they've tested the evidence for their opinions and found it strong. It just means they don't know how to argue and they're a better yeller.


by Simmy.

Conveinent activism

A friend recently asked me what my opinion was on the Olympics in China, and whether or not I was boycotting them personally.

To be honest I hadn't given it much thought, and really it didn't even apply to me because I don't have a TV. But that's besides the point, I never shy away from developing an opinion on something that doesn't apply to me. It's so much easier to pick the morally superior choice when you don't actually have to worry about how it effects your life.


by tingley

I immediately remembered the protests and public outcry that lead up to the Olympics. I remembered how many people called into CBC radio (my source for news) to voice their opinion, usually in support of the boycott concept. And then I thought of something that I hadn't before.

It suddenly struck me how ironic it is that the very people who are proposing we boycott the Olympics are directly supporting the communist regime financially by buying products manufactured in that country. I'm sure if the question had been "Should we boycott all trade with China?", their answer would have been very different.


by Daquella manera

People are all too willing to take strong moral stands on issues that don't effect them directly. If you are so vehemently opposed to human rights abuses that you are willing to destroy the noble life dreams of the athletes in your country, you should also be willing to pay twice as much for a Tickle-Me-Elmo manufactured in the western world.



Convenient activism is incredibly widespread in the western world and masquerading as real activism. Everyone is a hypocrite, but it's one thing not to practice exactly what you preach, it's another thing to preach dramatic changes that you will never have to practice.

It's easy to come down hard on handguns when you've never held one. Protests by people who don't own pit bulls lead to them being the only animal that is banned by in this province. According to Ontario Law you can own a tiger but you can't own a pit bull. You can call for a ban on cars over 400 horsepower when you don't have tens of thousands of dollars worth of suped-up '69 Mustang parked in your driveway.


by exxodus

I'm not saying that I agree with China's behavior and I'm not saying that everyone is entitled to a handgun. I'm just saying you should be wary when calling for others to make sacrifices that require nothing from you.


by laihiu

Everyone has an opinion and they should feel free to voice it. But when that opinion has the potential to become a law or policy which takes things away from other peoples lives, the benefit to the majority of the population has to be dramatic and clear in order to even justify considering it.

So the next time you propose banning violent video games, think about how you'd react if I proposed banning automobiles in cities, which cause more environmental damage and kill more people than anything else I can think of. I live in Toronto and drive a new car, do you play video games?

by A*A*R*O*N