I posted this is the transgender thread on another forum, and thought I'd post it here to.
Gender is a continuum. As an anthropologist, I've studied many cultures where it is accepted that there are more than two genders. Androgyny is just accepted. There are also cultures where sex roles are switched: men gabber and preen, women are aggressive hunters. However, I also know that in general, behavior is a combination of nature and nurture. There is scientific evidence that there is a certain "wiring" to the brain of either gender, and transsexuals tend to have the wiring of the opposite of their genetic sex.
This wiring, it is my theory, is a kind of evolutionary adaptation that might not be shared across the board of all human cultures. Culture creates the criteria for what is "masculine" and what is "feminine". Those who fit the criteria of what is "masculine," and are male are eventually selected for and vice versa with women. That does not mean that a genetic male cannot have the same wiring as a woman, it's just much less likely. This, I think, is the genesis of trannsexuality.
This "wiring" is within a certain range and is as diverse as any other genetic trait. The society determines what range of feminine traits makes a woman and what range of male traits makes a male, if the society even sharply divides between male and female. Like, I said before, it is all on a continuum
So what do you think?
I like it. I can see where you're coming from, too.
My theory is, transsexuals are born like this, it's biological and there is nothing you can do about it. Bitch, whine, moan, and cry, but in the end it takes you down.
I see the definition of Continuum is, (theory), anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes. Is Gender really that or is transsexuality that?
Most people don't question or change their gender so I don't think gender is a "continuum" but GID would be described by "continuum".
And GID or transsexuality would be a birth condition and the end result could be described as a continuum.
I'm not saying that it is not something we are born with. I am saying that nature and nurture, in evolution, reciprocate each other. Society defines gender, biology makes those who's "wiring" matches their biological gender selected for, the wiring becomes established for men and women. This establishment of wiring and gender does not cause men to have female wiring and vice versa to die out. They still occur, but are much rarer. So the wiring we have is determined at birth, but whether that wiring leads to what society defines as "male" or "female" behavior depends on social constructions.
As far as it being a continuum, we know it is a continuum because there are societies with a range of genders going from most feminine to most masculine. Also, as I said before, there are societies where gender roles are switched. Of course, to prove my theory in the first paragraph of this post empirically, it would be necessary to do scans of the brains of those in such societies to see how the wiring of their brains differ.
I find it a sufficiently interesting hypothesis that if you scored some decent funding (would require a fat chunk of change) I'd be interested in following the course of the study.
Thank you! Yes, to do the research in one fell swoop would take quite a few sizable research grants. That's usually why research in any field is usually done one small study after another. Also, it would need more than just anthropologists, but neuroscientists and biologists as well. I'll need a PhD before I can even begin to have the kind of influence necessary to do get the ball rolling though :(
I've found the word gender to be rather confusing recently. For so long I thought I knew what it meant but now with all these sub-meanings and theories. I just don't know any more. :S
I remember seeing (on a non-TG forum) someone swearing black and blue that gender and sex are linked in the sense of what is referred to biological gender, which there have been studies done but it kinda throws my original idea that sex was all that is physical and gender is of the mind referring mostly to the gender-identity side of gender. I can see how gender roles and all of that side could be a continuum but the side that is "hardwired" doesn't seem to be to me, I mean the word "hardwired" suggests that it is "fixed".
The word gender seems confusing, can gender be defined in one sentence? Without splitting it into sub-meanings? *confused*.
The thing to keep in mind when reading science or philosophy papers is that in general, the meaning for the purposes of the article are different than the general meanings used in everyday language. Here, when I say gender, I mean an identity that falls between culturaly defined ranges of masculinity and feminity, or among various genders in the case of societies with more than two.
I argue that yes gender is hardwired, however it was first a cultural construct that eventually led to hardwiring of the brain through evolution of the human species and is probably not found across the board of human cultures (namely those I have identified previously).
Yeah ok. So it's questioning the origin of the concept of gender-identity.
Is gender learnt and if so from what. From nurture and behavioural differences that are learnt and passed on?
Or... was it from something more physiological in response to how humans evolved to reproduce.. so in a sense the way our body produced hormones and how we reacted to those?
I mean the current understanding of transsexualism/GID is that it was a hormonal or genetic disorder during development in the womb? And nothing related to nurture? But you're suggesting it could of come about from nurture during our past/original evolution?
Now I'm more confused :S
But interested... :P
Are you referring to epigenetics Anthrogal? How the genetic makeup can be influenced in descendant generations due to something happening to an ancestor.
Classic examples are the effect on the height of people in northern Sweden following a famine around 1900. The area was extremely isolated, so relief wasn't available, and the descendants of people born at that time are still shorter than average.
Those who survived infancy during this famine tended to be small, and so needed less food. People born before the famine however, had normal height descendants, as they didn't have children until normal times had returned.
A similar effect has been reported in the Netherlands, following the winter of 1944, when the Wermacht starved the population of that country.
That's pretty much exactly how I see it. The details are complicated and I don't think anyone can claim to understand them, but I think the basic structure you describe is exactly the correct way to look at it.
The only thing I'd add is this: It's not just gender. Everything that is observable in nature or in human culture is a continuum. Literally everything. I study the most discrete things in the universe -- and they exist on a continuum. So you had better believe that squirrelly high-level concepts like gender exist on a continuum as well. Of course, some phenomena tend to cluster at particular regions of the spectrum, while others tend to spread out. But nothing is totally discrete.
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 24, 2010, 12:29:12 AM
The thing to keep in mind when reading science or philosophy papers is that in general, the meaning for the purposes of the article are different than the general meanings used in everyday language. Here, when I say gender, I mean an identity that falls between culturaly defined ranges of masculinity and feminity, or among various genders in the case of societies with more than two.
I argue that yes gender is hardwired, however it was first a cultural construct that eventually led to hardwiring of the brain through evolution of the human species and is probably not found across the board of human cultures (namely those I have identified previously).
Are you saying the hardwiring in the brain does not work correctly until there is contact with society? Or perhaps you can laborate a bit more for those that ar not anthropologists such as myslef.
Post Merge: July 24, 2010, 06:37:30 AM
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 23, 2010, 09:52:36 PM
I'm not saying that it is not something we are born with. I am saying that nature and nurture, in evolution, reciprocate each other. Society defines gender, biology makes those who's "wiring" matches their biological gender selected for, the wiring becomes established for men and women. This establishment of wiring and gender does not cause men to have female wiring and vice versa to die out. They still occur, but are much rarer. So the wiring we have is determined at birth, but whether that wiring leads to what society defines as "male" or "female" behavior depends on social constructions.
As far as it being a continuum, we know it is a continuum because there are societies with a range of genders going from most feminine to most masculine. Also, as I said before, there are societies where gender roles are switched. Of course, to prove my theory in the first paragraph of this post empirically, it would be necessary to do scans of the brains of those in such societies to see how the wiring of their brains differ.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520240731 (http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520240731)
Ever read Evolutions Rainbow?
Let me make it a bit more concrete for those who still have questions. I'll use a generally accepted theory regarding the evolution of gender roles along with my own theory. Back in hunter gatherer days, there was a need to clearly define gender roles. Women who were pregnant, even if they had hunting prowess, were not able to hunt efficiently and safely. If they did hunt, they would be slowed down considerably and also would put their unborn child at risk of miscarriage. As such, culture put "men's work" as hunting and "women's work" as gathering and domestic tasks.
There was nothing natural about gender roles when they first came into existence. It was just that men who had prowess at hunting and aggresiveness became selected for and women who were domestic were selected for. Over times, these behaviors became hardwired in the brain, and we get the present state of gender roles correlating with the wiring of the brain.
I hope this clears things up! And Lori, I've never read it , but I'm very interested in doing so!
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 24, 2010, 12:38:22 PM
Let me make it a bit more concrete for those who still have questions. I'll use a generally accepted theory regarding the evolution of gender roles along with my own theory. Back in hunter gatherer days, there was a need to clearly define gender roles. Women who were pregnant, even if they had hunting prowess, were not able to hunt efficiently and safely. If they did hunt, they would be slowed down considerably and also would put their unborn child at risk of miscarriage. As such, culture put "men's work" as hunting and "women's work" as gathering and domestic tasks.
There was nothing natural about gender roles when they first came into existence. It was just that men who had prowess at hunting and aggresiveness became selected for and women who were domestic were selected for. Over times, these behaviors became hardwired in the brain, and we get the present state of gender roles correlating with the wiring of the brain.
I hope this clears things up! And Lori, I've never read it , but I'm very interested in doing so!
I don't see how you can make such general statements. Nature wires itself how it wants regardless of conditions. You have to make too many assumptions that first all the women could and would get pregnant. Then assume they want to.
I'd say hormones and genetics do way more than socialization. Typically men don't care about shoes, but not all women do. Ya know?
Some women hunt. Not all men do. Some men gather, not all women do.
This is a general theory as to why the majority of socities are patriarchal. What we're talking about is general trends, and this theory is widely accepted in the anthropology community. In order for the human species to survive, women had to be pregnant much of the time. That's simple mathamatics. As a result women who were good at hunting but not caretaking were generally not selected for. That doesn't mean that they no longer exist, just that in that time they were not selected for. Evolution is not an exact process. It's not a process towards perfection, as many believe, but rather merely adapting to a constanty changing environment. If it were a process towards perfection, we would all be becoming bacteria, which are the most ancient and succesfull species of animal in existence.
Well; I can see your point, but I have to disagree.
You see, in most modern cultures, people are, again, selected for their qualities rather than their part in reproduction. Of course it makes sense that most men would, in ancient days, be hunters, while most women would be gatherers. This is not only because of child carriage, but more because of physical qualities.
I've noticed that most women are far more clumsy than most men, for example. That is just my experience, though. Most men are better at moving unnoticed, and most men are physically more durable, have an easier time neglecting physical damage, and are simply more muscular.
However, some men are perfectly incapable of hunting. Some women are perfectly able. It's not as black'n'white as you come across.
So I think gender roles are social constructs based on averages.
An example of this is another species: Lions. The females do most of the hunting, while the males do most of the care and protection. The reason: Female lions are faster. The males are bulky, and that makes them less adept at hunting fast game. However, males, due to their bulk, make excellent fighters, which is, in a lion's pride, a very important attribute for their cub's survival.
In other words: I think that societies adapt; not the brains. At this point in time, the hunt is, for human survival, near to meaningless. We have farms, after all. A lot of people make their living in an environment where gender is simply not important. Because of this, society adapts gender-roles to be far more fluid.
Again, I never meant it to be black and white. It is only a general theory for how gender roles came about. I'm most certainly not saying the all women are not capable of hunting while all men are, onle that it is selected for.
Interesting! But how does this theory make a distinction between, for example, feminine males as opposed to MTFs? Because the two are very different, and your hypothesis seems in danger of labelling feminine males/masculine females as transgendered when they're not. :P
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 24, 2010, 03:26:24 PM
This is a general theory as to why the majority of socities are patriarchal. What we're talking about is general trends, and this theory is widely accepted in the anthropology community. In order for the human species to survive, women had to be pregnant much of the time. That's simple mathamatics. As a result women who were good at hunting but not caretaking were generally not selected for. That doesn't mean that they no longer exist, just that in that time they were not selected for. Evolution is not an exact process. It's not a process towards perfection, as many believe, but rather merely adapting to a constanty changing environment. If it were a process towards perfection, we would all be becoming bacteria, which are the most ancient and succesfull species of animal in existence.
If you take a look at what she is saying it make sense, in a society the general majority tends to pick TRAITS that suit survival, its not the case as much today, but over time the traits that gave a better chance at survival were taken as positives for breeding and thus past down from generations. Say being tall is attractive to everyone, then short men wouldn't get dates, using punitz square dominant tall jeans would create taller off spring and they would continue to grow as generation after generation picked those traits.
If you look at dog breeding it works the same way, where selective traits are chosen to bring breeds for a purpose, certain dogs have certain temperaments, some are docile by nature some are active breeds, having these traits bread for centuries. Why no the same in humans?
What is interesting is if that theory is sound, then it posses some interesting questions on the future of humanity, strength in partners being the norm to this point, now intelligence and wisdom being more popular for women for survival. I wonder how this will effect us as species overtime as heterosexuality becomes more popular and mainstream.
A general reply after skimming some comments here.
First, trying to think about gender roles from an evolutionary perspective is highly suspect in my opinion -- at least, if you are trying to say something like "men are like X because of Y factor in Z early human society." Some broad factors you can account for -- there is a selective advantage to women looking "fertile," (whatever that means), because of sexual selection. That's almost certainly true. Also, sure, there's probably a division of labor in some early societies that has to do with why men are generally more strong (in simple terms of the maximum force most major muscles can apply).
But evolution is not a remotely straightforward process, and there are lots of caveats. There are many avenues to evolutionary success, and they often act at cross purposes, especially within populations. This is true in all sorts of animals, but especially so in humans.
That's why traits that seem like evolutionary dead ends (transgender internal identification or homosexuality) might be extremely beneficial. A possible scenario is that having a few adults without children can increase the odds of survival for a family or community: they can adopt children whose parents die, or they can fill in when others are occupied; or being free from family obligations, they have more opportunities to use their creativity in any number of ways to help the community; or who knows what else? Also, it's possible that variation within normative gender categories can be beneficial for filling in different roles in societies, kind of like rounding out a sports team, and people whom we now think of as queer or LGBT or whatever are just the outliers of the distribution.
So, Izumi, Punnett squares simply aren't relevant, at least not in the traditional usage -- the success probabilities depend on the state of the population, resulting in large coupled differential equations whose solutions are probably chaotic (like a Lorentz attractor). (I mention you, because you pointed them out, and they're a useful tool for discussion.)
In short, it's all really complicated, and we err if we don't acknowledge that.
Quote from: Izumi on July 29, 2010, 03:32:10 PM
using punitz square dominant tall jeans would create taller off spring
using punnett squares dominant tall genes would create taller offspring
Sorry, can't help it. Too many mistakes in one area for me to resist the urge to correct. Carry on with the discussion.
I absolutely agree with you, Alyssa. That is why not every culture is patriarchal. Again, what is selected for can only be seen in general, not as an absolute rule. I have tried to account for complexity in my theory.
I see what you are saying about culture the hunting and gathering idea. I think that what I see to day is the stereotype male and female roles. Men are expected to do certain things and woman are not and visevera. somewhere I started paterning my life after men even though I was mentaly a women. there is one facter that humans have that animals don't when we began to realize that something is not excepted a human will go out of there way to cover it up. knowing things are good, but knowing things are bad. we are able to comunicate now with other transsexuals and that has changed my life to the good. I would either have lived out my life hating myself and everyone esle or took an early dirt nap. Being transsexual around here were I live I am beganing to think that it could be more easyer because no one is looking for anyone to be transsexual. A girl walked into the Dollar store the other day and not even one person noticed except me. I was looking because I am aware of transfolk.
Post Merge: July 30, 2010, 12:32:00 AM
I have been thinking about going into anthropology in college. Just coming here I am starting to better understand myself and others like me. How is evolution going to effect us just coming here. I'm thinking that the trans community is going to grow just simply because we seek each other out and comfort each other through the hard times. we did not have that 10 years ago. why would anyone hurt themselves if the help is there? so knowledge plays a big roll in change. People will know that they are trans at an earlyer stage of their life. wel any way.
Apparently, there are some frogs that, based on the ratio of females to males in their population, will change their sex to better suit the propagation of their species.
Who's to say that humans are so different. I think it can be argued that the planet's human population is out of control.. I've often wondered if phenomena like homosexuality and transsexuality are attempts by the species as a whole to adjust its own population..
I have nothing to back this up.... Just a thought. :)
Jessica- That's actually a theory that used to be popular in biology. However, Richard Dawkins, whatever you may think of him, posed a good rebuttal. This rebuttal was called "the selfish gene." Take lemmings. It used to be believed that whenever they jumped off a cliff, it was when their populations were too big. However, if that were true, the lemmings that chose not to jump would have been selected for, and they would not jump after a few generations. Therefore, he reasoned, it is more likely lemmings jump because they don't know what they're doing.
With humans, those who would die for the sake of another would eventually not be selected for. Also, I am always wary of arguments that say there are too many humans. If wealth were more equitably distributed, there would be no cause for starvation.
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 03:41:00 AM
Also, I am always wary of arguments that say there are too many humans. If wealth were more equitably distributed, there would be no cause for starvation.
You have to admit, our actions are messing with the atmosphere and such and it would not be a problem if there were fewer of us. And the competitive ones are selected for, communism doesn't work. We're not termites.
No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.
Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 10:16:17 AM
No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.
Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.
Go tell that about 1% factories to china, they wont give a damn. The pollute more then any other country. The USA is clean compared to them.
Also about the 1% of wealth. Spreading wealth is a terrible idea, because it gives benefits to people who dont earn them which leads to complacency. Let me give you this example: I pay you 1000 a week to sit on your ass and do nothing. A job opportunity opens up, you would earn 1200 a week but have to work 40 hours a week. I dont know about you, but i would continue to sit on my ass and do nothing until the amount I earn would be greater to the point where getting off my ass would be feasible. Sadly this is the utopia you would have. You also punish success, for example, if I make more money and continue to grow my business, then suddenly i realize that even though there is a demand for my product, if i grow anymore i will be taxed too much to make a profit on the expansion, so I dont hire more workers, i dont expand my production, for what reason? bureaucratic stupidity? So the more i make the more they take for me, whats the motivation for success at all? Might as well not do anything and get money for it.
See even though the 1% own everything who is to say they didn't earn it, Bill gates, even though i think he signed a contract with the devil started in a garage with no money, now hes rich! The beautiful thing is that anyone can do it, if they are motivated to do so, but sadly most people are just complacent where they are. You can also become rich simply by being good with your money, it doesnt take much to live, if you manage it right you can make a lot of money even if you work at mcdonalds.
Post Merge: August 02, 2010, 12:16:33 PM
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 30, 2010, 10:16:17 AM
No, communism doesn't work, but democratic socialism does. It's been in use in Europe ever since the end of WWII. Darwin never meant for his theories to be taken in the realm of economics. Social darwinism is a crock. I think we're at a stage in our evolution where we can bring our behavior into question and find a better way to coexist. You can't tell me that the top 1% in America owning the vast majority of the nation's wealth is just.
Edit: Also, it is mostly the actions of that 1% that cause environmental problems through the factories they own. For the rest of us, individual contributions to greenhouse gasses make up, I believe, less than a percent of the total.
I forgot, democratic socialism is just socialism. It doesnt work btw, although some people think it does, it just takes longer to fail. Greece for example. The problem with government giving anything it out is that it has to take it from somewhere, unfortunately sometimes they promise more then they can dish out and dont understand the consequences or simply pass them on to a different administration. See any government would work if all the people in government were pure souls that put morals in front of agendas, however, this is not the case, government is corrupt, they take bribes, lobby groups influence decisions, etc... they make promises to constituents they cant fiscally deliver, however they still enact them, not really understand the longer term damage that would cause. So any government will eventually fall, if the people just dont give a damn. How many times will you reelect someone after they lied to you over and over... to us in the US, politician = crook, but for some reason they think its ok for them to run socialized medicine... wtf kind of reasoning is that? Let the mafia do it, they will do it more efficiently.
Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.
Miss Elk:
Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?
Presenter:
Er... exactly.
(he gestures but she does not say anything)
What is it?
Miss Elk:
Where? (looks round)
Presenter:
No, no. Your new theory.
Miss Elk:
Oh, what is my theory?
Presenter:
Yes.
Miss Elk:
Oh what is my theory that it is.
Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.
Presenter:
I am asking.
Miss Elk:
Good for you. My word yes.
Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine
Presenter:
(beginning to show signs of exasperation)
Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?
Miss Elk:
Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it.
(clears throat at some length)
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
(clears throat at great length)
This is how it goes.
The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?
Presenter:
Yes!
It starts off thinner at one end
Gets thicker.
Then goes thinner again.
- Does this mean that brontosauri are palindromic animals?
Quote from: Anthrogal on August 02, 2010, 04:42:32 PM
Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.
To respond to your argument, if your talking about the US economy this whole mess was caused by government regulation in the banking industry. They forced banks to loan money to unqualified people, they subsidized those bad loans, and when the economy crashed (housing bubble), they came in and helped us recover, how? by taxing people who make money and giving it to those that dont, all the while they are presenting themselves as the saviors! Hail the government come to save us, but they are the ones that started this mess in the first place. I also dont care which administration started it either democrat republican doesnt matter its corrupt either way. Its like you and your friends sitting at a restaurant eating, you work your IT job and get lots of money, and he works at Dennys and makes a little money, you both order the same hamburger but the management comes up to you and says oh, your friend doesn't make as much as you, so you have to pay 1/2 of his burger. Then they take your money go over to your friend and say HERE look what we have for you, we are going to pay for 1/2 your burger cuz your special ^_^b. Wow gee thanks management of the restaurant your so swell.... oh we forgot to mention, their is a small administrative fee for giving you this money, so we will take a bit of it ok ^_^b.
Thats the reality we live in now, does that seem fair to you? DOES IT REALLY SEEM FAIR THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES YOUR MONEY GIVES IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, ALL THE WHILE THEY GET THE PRAISE AND SMILES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT GET IT, NOT YOU. Also, what happens when they become successful and their money gets taken away.... you might see things differently.
See i was born in the USSR, thats right, the USSR where the government had to decide how much pantyhose was allowed per household. Distribution of wealth is not a good idea in any country simply because you are taking away from people who are successful (punishing success) and giving to those that aren't. I am sure in your studies of typical animal behavior you know that if you get the shock plate enough times you stop trying to get the pellet. Well it works for humans too. Everytime you do good you get slapped with more and more taxes you decide, forget this, and leave the country WITH your money and business and go elsewhere were you dont get punished for success. Why do you think all these companies are outsourcing or leaving all together, why do you think we cannot compete in the first place? Taxes, government regulations, and all out corruption. You follow your system and we wont have any jobs anyway for people to be employed in, then the government will simply make jobs for you to do, but you wont have a choice on whether you want to do them or not, you want money, you will do them.
By the way i am not a republican so dont even think of calling me one, i am also not a democrat. I am open minded and try to see both sides and take a look at the solutions through historical data and come to my own conclusions, however i lean a little liberal on social issues and i am dead conservative on fiscal.
The reason no one can find a job is because the government solution to the recession is to tax the business (and people) that create jobs... then provide temporary government employment which is subsidized by those tax dollars, oh did i forget we simply print more money to make the value of our currency more and more worthless.... Eventually the companies will continue to do worse until finally there is no money for the temporary employees... then the government will be in a whole world of hurt and so will we. You think you have seen recession you havent seen anything yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you have ever worked in a government subsidized position then you know that the government by nature is dreadfully inefficient with tax funds, wasteful spending is built into the system because you are punished for efficiency and innovation, let me give you this example: Once a branch for my school is nearing the end of the year (i teach by the way in college), we find ways to spend all the money in our budget because if we dont, it will be taken away next year so spending when we dont need to is the name of the game, all government is based on this, ALL OF IT. How can you hope to offer efficient services when wastefulness is a built in reward for the system?
As for the European countries sure, they are happy, the government is subsidizing their lives, but guess what.... they are running out of money, and just like greece they will fall, but their wont be anyone who can save them if they eventually all fall. Your Utopian socialist state can only exist if the benefits offered to citizens do not exceed the actual amounts brought in my taxes, and taxes are a double edged sword. If you tax to much your economy suffers, tax too little you have to cut programs. Only in a state of balance can your vision of socialism work, but no one has gotten it right simply because of the failings of the human condition.... we want power, and absolute power corrupts does it not... greed, selfishness, that is the downfall of any civilization, free or socialist, its just that in a free society we have more outside controls to prevent it from getting out of hand as rapidly. Take a look at this before you look at those happy European nations:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5515912,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5515912,00.html)
yeah, most are nearing bankruptcy, like Greece. The US isnt immune either, but who will bail us out?
So to sum up, socialism doesn't work (historically this is accurate), more freedom means more prosperity (yes you have the freedom to fail or succeed its your call), the government's roll is protection only within and without (not to provide you with health care), i think i got all of it... so now i expect everybody to pile up put me down, yes I am a corporate fat cat and evil, well sorry that wont work, i dont have a lot of money, i live with roommates, i am in debt, but working my way out of it, and i drive an accent not a bmw, and in 5 years i will have enough investments to retire, because i give up luxuries today to have an easier life later. My parents came here with nothing, now they have 2 homes and no debt, my dad worked his ass off for it, and so we could have a better life. If transition has told me anything, its that nothing is given to you, you got to get off your ass and do it yourself.
Post Merge: August 02, 2010, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: Anthrogal on August 02, 2010, 04:42:32 PM
Actually, the rich that "deserve" their wealth are an extreme minority in that 1%. Most of it is old money through inheritance. Like any basic sociology class will tell you, that 1% are largely living off what their predecessors made. Also, China isn't really a good example as it is pretty much communist in name only. Furthermore, sure there are problems in Greece, but what about France, Germany, Denmark, etc? They are included in the happiest countries in the world. As far as "complacency" you're going to have to actually find an example of it on a mass scale instead of just a hypothetical situation. You're argument smacks of those Republicans saying we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because that would make them "complacent" when only 1% of the unemployed, if that, actually didn't look for a job.
Also i forgot to mention, what i do with my money when i die should be my business so those people who inherited wealth, deserve it too, why should you get something someone's dad worked hard for, someone down the line had to do something for that wealth after all and my kids deserve it more then you do, or anyone else. That being said, i wouldnt give it to a kid thats a scumbag though.... I would give it to charity first, and some millionaires actually have.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fi%2Fbto%2F20080908%2FThread-Offtopic-Derailed.jpg&hash=fb35c6978147f39d5da85491ba3bb99442eb1c63)
:P
Quote from: Katelyn-W on August 02, 2010, 06:54:08 PM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fi%2Fbto%2F20080908%2FThread-Offtopic-Derailed.jpg&hash=fb35c6978147f39d5da85491ba3bb99442eb1c63)
:P
heh, you got that right..... ^_^ its my fault too. Sorry.
Actually, if you follow the numbers, it was caused by the DEregulation of the banking industry, particularly the revocation of huge sections of the Glass-Steagall Act, but hey, don't the facts get in the way of your argument.
Quote from: tekla on August 02, 2010, 07:09:41 PM
Actually, if you follow the numbers, it was caused by the DEregulation of the banking industry, particularly the revocation of huge sections of the Glass-Steagall Act, but hey, don't the facts get in the way of your argument.
Sorry argument isnt invalidated by it, my original argument is that government causes more problems then they fix, and as you can see they dont know what they are doing, the Glass-Steagall act is just one. However take a look at the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers.
Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.
And this little problem was caused by REGULATION not DE-Regulation. So the government De-Regulates, it causes problems, they regulate it causes problems, do you see a pattern here.... Government causes problems not solutions, and that is a historically accurate statement, if you dont believe me why do we have such an enormous deficit and doing nothing to repay it. Any company can see financial stability through the balancing of their books, the government's books havent balanced for decades.
I mean even if you step back and think of it logically why would a bank make loans to people they know cannot pay? Its like committing financial suicide. A bank makes money on the interest payed on loans, they dont make money on owning houses, and typically lose money when a house is repossessed, especial in a buyers market like now. No bank would do this for any reason, unless forced too from outside, or unless the people working there are so incredibly stupid they dont know what they are doing.
Hey this was a fascinating topic ... until the derailment when it started getting all political and I was going, "la la la la" in my head and scrolling and hoping to read more about the original topic ;) No worries though, I've hijacked some threads in my time.
Anyway ... interesting. And I was just thinking this week about how much the society we live in is actually responsible for most of our "issues". If someone feels more comfortable in one gender role but most of society still does not see them like that it causes a problem. There are a small percentage of people in any given society that are open-minded and not swayed by the herd mentality. The problem is that the herd mentality has been going on for thousands of years. Back in the time of the earliest homo sapiens (and what pre-dated even them) roles were defined out of necessity, as has already been mentioned. It was probably not a prejudice that drove those decisions. Over time and the evolution of culture in a society that has changed.
What if the only time "gender" actually mattered was to procreate? How different would our society be? That's a whole other tangent, but seriously, the way most of us grow up is in a binary-gender world. Everything is set up to be either male or female. Small steps have been made in our culture. Just because a women puts on a man's shirt, she's no longer a cross-dresser (although I think a man who prefers womens underwear is still called one - so even those small steps have their own problems). I hope I live to see days where guys can openly wear make up if they choose to, there's no longer an issue about gay marriage, if people want to change their gender for whatever reason they can do so and it is accepted, and lots of other things. I'm not sure I will because it seems to me there's such a small percentage of people who aren't really as accepting as they say they are and changing society's views as a whole is not going to be easy to do. Like I said these gender roles have been in place for a very long time.
Quote from: insideontheoutside on August 10, 2010, 08:39:12 PM
Hey this was a fascinating topic ... until the derailment
we are all descended from Adam and Eve which is why any man on the planet can mate - or at least provide the sperm - to father offspiing with any woman - the derailment was caused by a serpent on the track.
It took a few generations before TSism raised its ugly head but no doubt Adam had his offspring come to him and recount tales of how the great-great-grandkid had been caught crossdressing