Google Branded Sexist for Saying No to Cougars

[backin5]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You're kind of confused, and not thinking clearly. You're probably too close to it think objectively... [/citation]

I could say the same thing about you. If you write something like "Dumb women claim double standards, and societal issues, etc..." then obviously you have an opinion and your reasoning is swayed by it.

Unlike you, I don't reject a valid argument just because it doesn't fit my agenda. I didn't say at any point that what you wrote about men having an evolutionary reason to sexually interact with as many (young) women as possible is incorrect. All I said was that it doesn't constitute as an excuse for discrimination in this day and age.

You are only rejecting my valid explanation about evolutionary reason for women to have kids from one man while raising them with another (which doesn't contradict what you wrote about men, btw) because it doesn't fit a pro-discrimination agenda.

 

[backin5]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You must be a woman, and it's sad you hate what you are, but I can understand it (but, it's not easy being a man either, you just don't see all the problems). But, you won't change nature. What you got was because men agreed to it, not because women were so powerful they could get it without men wishing for it. We don't view females as enemies, as we view mothers, sisters, daughters, etc..., as very important and thus want good things for them. That's the crux of the matter. You're into some weird war of the sexes, but forget it. There's too much collaboration with the enemy. Most people have others from the opposite gender that they love, and are very close to. Based on your remarks, you're probably young, and don't know how easy it is to manipulate men yet, so you're frustrated. But, keep plugging away. Get all frustrated, worked up, and keep thinking you'll change the way nature made things. Oh, and by the way, the reason the lady was told to sit in the back of the bus wasn't because she was female. Men give up seats to females, moreso years ago, but you really wouldn't know much about that, would you?[/citation]

Again, you are the one who's confused and completely swayed by your agenda, TA152H.

am_inspire gave the story of Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks as a GENERAL example for people (in this case, the two happened to be women) standing up against a long-lasting discrimination (in this case against African-Americans), but you decided that am_inspire is confused and meant it as an example for standing up against sexist bias, because in your mind, it seems, anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions is confused/misguided whatever...

Your personal attack on am_inspire says more about you and your opinions TA152H than about am_inspire.

 

[banthracis]

[citation][nom]backin5[/nom] Now I'll ask you simply: In your opinion does the whole scientific reasoning you gave for the existence of the double standard means Google (or anyone else for that matter) has a right to discriminate? If your answer is like mine, a big fat no, then the reasoning for the double standard is irrelevant to this discussion.[/citation]

Let me ask you this, how much do you know about electron orbital theory and quantum mechanics? If you're like most American's I'd wager not much. Does this mean these issue are irrelevant? Of course not. Were it not for people with knowledge on these issues you wouldn't have a computer to be typing on or an internet to be posting this on.

The reason for why things occur is the basis of scientific knowledge, which in turn is the basis upon which every staple of civilization is based.

You're being very shortsighted, and rather dumb I might add, to reject scientific rational simply because it does not conform to your agenda.

To your initial question, you're confusing a natural inequality with man made inequalities. Is if fair that men suffer from prostate cancer while women do not? Is it fair that women suffer the pain of childbirth while men do not? Is it fair some people are born with disabilities while others perfectly healthy?

Natural inequalities exist, nature isn't fair and you should be glad for that, as without these innate differences, what we call variability, humanity would never have evolved in the first place.

Do I think man made inequalities like race, sexual preference or gender discrimination should exist? No of course not. But these are artificial man made distinctions not natural ones.

Do I think natural distinctions should be eliminated? No. Doing so would be the equivalent of living in a world of clones of the same person, with none of the individuality that I and many others value.

It's very unfair, in an artificial man made manner, to cherry pick which inequalities you feel should exist, and say those are ok, but to claim other inequalities which you don't agree with are bad.

This is the definition of hypocrisy and for your attitude, I say shame on you!

 

[sherif444]

@TA152H well said !

 

[backin5]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]Let me ask you this, how much do you know about electron orbital theory and quantum mechanics? If you're like most American's I'd wager not much...[/citation]

Had you bothered to carefully read what I wrote, you would have realized earlier on that I did NOT reject any of scientific knowledge that was written here. I am not one of THOSE people. What you wrote seem to suggest you assume I'm from the United States, well, I'm not.

The only reason I wrote and still maintain that all that scientific reasoning is irrelevant to the situation at hand is because natural differences between males and females, as you yourself just wrote, is not a valid excuse for social discrimination (at least we agree on that), which is the case in this news article.

If you followed this entire comments thread you should know that the whole thing started with this post (see page 1):
"...Dumb women claim double standards, and societal issues, etc... These idiots will eventually understand it is just the way nature made people, and complaining will not change it. It's basically instinctive...".

I am not the one confused about the difference between natural inequality and social inequality. And again, this news article is about social inequality.

I never suggested that we should eliminate the natural differences between people, nor do I support the idea. And from my personal point of view, I believe there can never be two exactly identical human beings anyway, not even amongst clones (except for maybe a very specific theoretical situation).

 

[banthracis]

You're taking offense at the statement:

These idiots will eventually understand it is just the way nature made people, and complaining will not change it. It's basically instinctive

This is the same biological explanation for the behavior I've stated, just worded in a more offensive manner.

By disagreeing with that, you're taking his biological explanation and trying to apply it as an artificially created distinction by Google.

This is where you're making the mistake.

Or to make it even simpler for you.

Google is NOT promoting an artificial societal distinction. They are promoting a naturally occurring Human Behavioral distinction.

In the US men can pee into urinals while women are restricted to toilets. This is another natural distinction, yet I haven't seen anyone complain it's unfair. Why does google allegedly promoting a different natural distinction suddenly become unfair?

You're arguing this is a social issue, we're telling you it's a behavioral issue.

 

[spikey_monkey]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Women will complain about how nature made them until time ends, but the reality is, it's normal for a man to be attracted to a younger woman, and far less common for the reverse. Dumb women claim double standards, and societal issues, etc... These idiots will eventually understand it is just the way nature made people, and complaining will not change it. It's basically instinctive.[/citation]

It appears that you're trying to justify gender roles (a construct of society) based on biological facts. Often, especially in this case, the two are unrelated.

Yes, it is medically unsound to attempt pregnancy beyond 40, but women oftentimes have stronger sex drives in their later years than their male counterparts. This is the extent that biology is able play a role in this issue. Does it appear that nature is giving humans the finger when considering this fact? Yes.

The great conflict in your argument is comparing what is "normal" to what is "natural" and claiming they are identical. It is normal for men to pursue younger women because men have always been free and "on top" in western history/civilizations. However, it is natural for women to remain sexually active much longer than men, as women hit their sexual peak near 30, whereas men hit their peak near 20. Obviously society is not a reflection of nature.

I'm sure you don't realize (otherwise I'll be very disheartened) that your argument merely serves as a nonsensical justification of oppression. As long as you dismiss the fact that the ambiguous, ethereal force we call "society" taught you most of what you believe and was constructed with specific interests in mind (usually to preserve hierarchies), it will remain incredibly difficult for you to interpret the implications of your beliefs. Be more careful about throwing around terms such as "idiot" and "dumb" when you are so ready to dismiss the logic that has created this situation we all find ourselves in. A situation that encompasses incalculable issues that span much farther than just gender roles.

 

[banthracis]

I agree that TA is being offensive spikey, but his point is valid.

There is a difference between artificial (aka societal inequalities) and natural ones.

The right to vote, or where one sits on the bus has no biological basis and are artificial. However, many gender roles are not. The fact that women give birth to children while men do not is not a construct of society, it's a fact of nature.

I agree with removing artificial inequalities, but the fact that young women with older men in acceptable whilst opposite is not, has a biological and evolutionary rationale.

In cases of these biologically imposed distinctions, I do not think it's correct to consider them a civil rights issue, any more than forcing women to give birth, or allowing men to use both urinals and toilets to pee, while restricting women to using toilets to pee, is a civil rights issue.

 

[spikey_monkey]

I'll just restate that there are also biological facts that support "cougarism." By no means would I allow TAs argument to be the end-all of this debate.

Because these biological facts of age in relation to sexual activity are being ignored, the issue is very much grounded in social expectations, norms and the status quo. It's very convenient to simply ignore an older woman's strong sexual urges that, at least at age 30, are on par with those of a 20 year old male.

 

[banthracis]

Saying 40 yr old women are useless is a bit silly. The correct distinction would be post menopausal women w/ young men, vs similarly aged male and young female.

Cougarism is the form of post menopause female w/ young male has no major body of scientific evidence supporting it, either in humans or other species where males are sexually fit for longer. The reverse however, is documented.

However, in species where females live longer/are sexually fit longer, the opposite is true and documented.

This isn't an anti female point I'm trying to argue. It's simply the fact that the human species evolved in such a way that females lost their sexual fitness at a younger age than males.

If it were the opposite, males equally would be wrong in complaining.

 

[spikey_monkey]

I assume by "sexual fitness" you mean the female's ability to reproduce. Though the ability to reproduce diminishes much earlier in women, women also tend to naturally possess a stronger libido longer. This is why when considering biology the issue still revolves around the sexual oppression of women.

I'd even go so far as to declare that women are more biologically justified seeking younger partners than men are in relation to modern, democratic societies, simply to better satisfy their sexual needs. My morals don't agree with the simple satisfaction of bodily urges dictating all action, but it seems the appropriate course as far as civil liberties go.

 

[backin5]

banthracis, instead of answering I'll just ask:

1) How many dating sites do you know of that are intended for mixed crowds of adults and children (anybody under 18, that is)?

I admit that's a rather rhetorical question.

2) Do you think that ANY dating site for 18+ only is family friendly?

3) Does the natural bias for men seeking younger women really makes an adults only dating site of that nature more "family friendly" than a dating site for women seeking younger men?

4) If we are taking that "nature's way" path, here's another example which isn't all that different: Does the natural bias for heterosexuality (from the perspective of reproduction) makes an adults only dating site for heterosexuals more "family friendly" than a site for homosexuals?

5) Will obliterating any references of women seeking younger men make the phenomenon go away?

6) Will obliterating any references of homosexuality will make homosexuality go away?