Dexter's Sister and female characters, * lets keep it CIVIL!! *

[Gryphos]

And not every change is possible. There are physical limitations on what a human can do, for example.

Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.

 

[Mindfire]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. So what do you mean exactly by gender roles being 'useful'?

Remember all that stuff I said about an ordered universe and ordained life-paths? Basically that. We're talking about intangibles here, but an adequate articulation of the abstract truth might be that gender roles are, in their purest form, an emergent expression of the Creator's order and as such can be useful in helping someone find their path in life. Concrete example: If I wonder what I ought to be as a man, I might look to my father, who has embodied manhood for me throughout my entire life. I recognize our differences in personality and preference, but his example is still helpful in guiding me towards the principle of masculinity.

 

[Mindfire]

Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.

Transhumanism kind of makes me sick to my stomach, actually. Not a fan. Even tattoos and cosmetic surgery make me cringe.

 

[X Equestris]

Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.

But even if such technological advancements come to pass, there will still be limits. They'll just be in a different place. And then you add the extra hurdle of how someone on the low end of society can acquire them.

 

[Mindfire]

But what I'm trying to say is 'who we are' is changeable. You are your circumstances, your attitudes, your beliefs, and your opinions. And all of those can change. And that's amazing!

I would not agree. Because I believe in an intangible spark that both encompasses and transcends all of these. A sort of essential personal quality we're gifted with when we enter this life. It can be strengthened or weakened, but not really changed. Like I said, it's that starting point, the core from which everything else extends. You might call it the soul.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Gryphos et al.,

I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the exact same. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.

 

[Mindfire]

Gryphos et al.,

I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the exact same. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.

An excellent example. I'd go so far as to say that even if this trait of your son's wasn't indelible, trying to change it wouldn't be a wise idea.

 

[Trick]

My son Emery tore a hole in his lung the first time he cried, which apparently is somewhat common but his was larger normal and they kept him in the NICU for a week. It was a hard time but he healed up and is healthy. The point of this story is that while in the NICU, they took every precaution possible to keep him from crying or moving, to avoid surgery. He was medically sleeping most of that time. The day we brought him home, we laid out a blanket and laid him on it on the floor. He immediately began to move and spun his body 360 degrees and then kept going, pushing with his feet and pulling with his hands. At a week old, this kind of movement is nuts but that's just Emery. He'll be 2 in six days and he has never stopped moving. He got genetics from my wife's side when it comes to his build and he is short for his age but he is stronger than is 3.5 year old brother who is almost a foot taller than him. This is just who he is and he wasn't conditioned while he was asleep for a week. His grandpa is exactly the same way: Short, strong and always moving. Their personalities are even similar - and they were before they ever spent time together.

 

[Gryphos]

Remember all that stuff I said about an ordered universe and ordained life-paths? Basically that. We're talking about intangibles here, but an adequate articulation of the abstract truth might be that gender roles are, in their purest form, an emergent expression of the Creator's order and as such can be useful in helping someone find their path in life. Concrete example: If I wonder what I ought to be as a man, I might look to my father, who has embodied manhood for me throughout my entire life. I recognize our differences in personality and preference, but his example is still helpful in guiding me towards the principle of masculinity.

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.

Transhumanism kind of makes me sick to my stomach, actually. Not a fan. Even tattoos and cosmetic surgery make me cringe.

That's a shame. Personally, I find the endless possibilities of how humanity can improve itself (given sufficient technology) fantastic. And I think tattoos can be pretty cool.

But even if such technological advancements come to pass, there will still be limits. They'll just be in a different place. And then you add the extra hurdle of how someone on the low end of society can acquire them.

And eventually those limits may well be overcome. You're right, true limitlessness is probably impossible, but even if humanity never becomes truly limitless, there will be a shitload less limits then there were previously. As to the issue of social class, that's a whole different topic for another thread, but one I do happen to have a lot to say about.

I would not agree. Because I believe in an intangible spark that both encompasses and transcends all of these. A sort of essential personal quality we're gifted with when we enter this life. It can be strengthened or weakened, but not really changed. Like I said, it's that starting point, the core from which everything else extends. You might call it the soul.

Again, here we arrive at an area of pure subjectivity. See, I don't believe in this spark you describe. I take an approach and view that the 'soul' doesn't exist as its own property or force. Rather, if there is a 'soul', I would describe it as the essence of ourselves. By this I mean our personality, the way each and every one of us is different from everyone else in countless, incomprehensible ways. The way I think, the way I act, my opinions, my views, the memories locked away in my head, that, all together, is my soul.

I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the exact same. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.

The earlier the experience, the more it affects someone. Some things are extremely difficult to change, to the point that it's veritably impossible.

A note: When I say everything can change, I'm not saying everything is easy to change. Deeply ingrained instincts and personality traits will be nigh impossible to remove or alter. I'm just saying that there is physically the capability and potential for change, however tiny, in every aspect of our personalities.

My son Emery tore a hole in his lung the first time he cried, which apparently is somewhat common but his was larger normal and they kept him in the NICU for a week. It was a hard time but he healed up and is healthy. The point of this story is that while in the NICU, they took every precaution possible to keep him from crying or moving, to avoid surgery. He was medically sleeping most of that time. The day we brought him home, we laid out a blanket and laid him on it on the floor. He immediately began to move and spun his body 360 degrees and then kept going, pushing with his feet and pulling with his hands. At a week old, this kind of movement is nuts but that's just Emery. He'll be 2 in six days and he has never stopped moving. He got genetics from my wife's side when it comes to his build and he is short for his age but he is stronger than is 3.5 year old brother who is almost a foot taller than him. This is just who he is and he wasn't conditioned while he was asleep for a week. His grandpa is exactly the same way: Short, strong and always moving. Their personalities are even similar - and they were before they ever spent time together.

Very interesting. I would say that since he was asleep for his very first few days, there would be no potential for outside influences to override the innate inherited traits.

 

[Devor]

That video has very little to do with what we're discussing.

I deserve that - I posted the wrong video. The kids were noisy so I couldn't hear to check it. The longer version went into the research on twins who are separated at birth, which is where their conclusions on parenting come from. Among other things, they find that when social conditioning "lets up," which it does as you get older, people revert to themselves - the person determined in large part by their biology.

He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.

I've got three boys and all three have very different behaviors which go all the way back to the day they were born. My oldest was a happy little guy who kicked off the swaddling blankets and was giddy about everything. My second was a scared little guy who screamed at the slightest provocation. And my third son, who spent two weeks in the NICU, watches quietly and takes it all in. Social conditioning didn't create these traits. And in the case of my middle son, social conditioning hasn't fixed it. :furious:

 

[Mindfire]

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.

As I said, not particularly convincing if you aren't Christian. Even less so if you're not religious at all.

That's a shame. Personally, I find the endless possibilities of how humanity can improve itself (given sufficient technology) fantastic. And I think tattoos can be pretty cool.

My issue with tattoos and cosmetic surgery, beyond the childish icky-factor, is that it is more or less irreversible. If you screw it up or have second thoughts, you're stuck with it for life. That's horrifying. As for the rest, I would ask at what point does this "improvement" go so far that we cease to be human? But that's more a question for sci-fi than fantasy.

Again, here we arrive at an area of pure subjectivity. See, I don't believe in this spark you describe. I take an approach and view that the 'soul' doesn't exist as its own property or force. Rather, if there is a 'soul', I would describe it as the essence of ourselves. By this I mean our personality, the way each and every one of us is different from everyone else in countless, incomprehensible ways. The way I think, the way I act, my opinions, my views, the memories locked away in my head, that, all together, is my soul.

I think our beliefs are the inverse of each other. While you might view the "the soul", or "the heart" as scripture often calls it, as a sort of construct made up of all the things you described (if you believed in it), I would instead describe it as the center from which all those other things are the outflow.

 

[WooHooMan]

I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.

But they do actually exist, otherwise we wouldn't be affected by them. Just because they are or could be a social norm rather than a biological factor doesn't mean "fixing" them is as easy as ignoring them or denying they ever existed in the first place.
I think you mean to say that you don't believe that masculinity/femininity exist in nature or you believe they aren't inherent traits to people.

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.

Personally, I don't care for transhumanism but for a different reason than Mindfire. I find a lot of transhumanist are misanthropes who enjoy the fantasy of humanity being fundamentally changed on both a social and biological level. Of course, this isn't to say that misanthropy is the sole appeal of transhumanism or that all tranhumanists are misanthropes, that's just the exposure I've gotten. In the same way that your experience with gender norms have led you to believe that gender is a social construct with a negligible biological basis when it could potentially be the other way around.

Generally, I tend to be very pro-humanism - I love humanity - so saying you want to change humanity doesn't really sit well with me even though I see the potential good. My humanist philosophy has also led me to believe that the gender norms of masculinity and femininity can be equally good and probably shouldn't be done away with completely. Key words being "believe", "can be" and "probably".

 

[Gryphos]

But they do actually exist, otherwise we wouldn't be affected by them. Just because they are or could be a social norm rather than a biological factor doesn't mean "fixing" them is as easy as ignoring them or denying they ever existed in the first place.
I think you mean to say that you don't believe that masculinity/femininity exist in nature or you believe they aren't inherent traits to people.

I mean to say that what people label as masculine and feminine are a collection of individual traits all under the same umbrella term. The actual things masculinity and femininity don't exist, only the traits they encompass actually exist, if you see what I mean.

Personally, I don't care for transhumanism but for a different reason than Mindfire. I find a lot of transhumanist are misanthropes who enjoy the fantasy of humanity being fundamentally changed on both a social and biological level. Of course, this isn't to say that misanthropy is the sole appeal of transhumanism or that all tranhumanists are misanthropes, that's just the exposure I've gotten. In the same way that your experience with gender norms have led you to believe that gender is a social construct with a negligible biological basis when it could potentially be the other way around.

Generally, I tend to be very pro-humanism - I love humanity - so saying you want to change humanity doesn't really sit well with me even though I see the potential good. My humanist philosophy has also led me to believe that the gender norms of masculinity and femininity can be equally good and probably shouldn't be done away with completely. Key words being "believe", "can be" and "probably".

I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.

 

[Mindfire]

I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.

For reasons I cannot adequately express, I find this simile disturbing.

Also, on a tangential note, I'd suggest reading CS Lewis's Space Trilogy. As good a fiction for expressing my side of this issue as can be found.

 

[WooHooMan]

I mean to say that what people label as masculine and feminine are a collection of individual traits all under the same umbrella term. The actual things masculinity and femininity don't exist, only the traits they encompass actually exist, if you see what I mean.

I don't think I see what you mean.
Just because something is conceptual, that doesn't mean it's non-existent.

If I'm understanding your logic right, I could say that "words" don't exist. They're just a bunch of sounds and symbols that we, as a society, have given meaning to.
I could say that science isn't a "thing", it's an umbrella term for many academic disciplines like biology, physics, geology and so forth.

I'm not trying to defend the social norms; I'm just saying that pretending they aren't real or have no basis at all isn't the best way to fix them.

I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.

I said specifically that misanthropy isn't a trait of transhumanists. I'm certainly not implying that you're a misanthrope if that's how you're reading this.
I'm just saying that the exposure I have had to transhumanism have also included misanthropy (which I'm deeply against) which has led to me having an unjustly negative perception of transhumanism.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong in our assessments of transhumanism. I'm saying our experience with the concepts of transhumanism (and gender) have shaped our perceptions.
Everyone has different views so, y'know, whatever. Live and let live.

 

[ascanius]

Wow, I just wanted to see other peoples examples of well done female characters, thought it would be interesting. However I cannot say this conversation hasn't been interesting from the peeks I managed to steal at work.

Well, I'm sure everyone knows my thoughts but I figure I'll clarify. First I think social conditioning and biology contribute equally but not in by creating so called traits or interests. The types of toys, colors, or job someone likes seem more like interests and I think that is very much social. With regards to behavior and biology, biology has a subtle influence that works behind the scenes. For example men and women have different densities in two types of neural pathways in the brain. Men have much higher densities of pathways in each hemisphere than of the brain than females. Females have greater densities of pathways between hemispheres than that of the male brain. What this means is males have a lot more resources dedicated to a task that involves that hemisphere than does a female. Females have more resources to connect each hemisphere meaning they have more resources dedicated to linking tasks our thought processes from two hemephers together. I think biology plays a major role in how we percieve and process the world around us but I think it is social influence that helps shape our opinions and beilefes about that information. A computer analogy would be males having an overclocked GPU while females have and overclocked multicore processors, or the difference between a Minix os and linux os.

As to the whole transhuminism, I think it is a horrible idea. Last I heard there was a push by the scientific community to impose a moritorium on genetic engeneering humans, which is possible. There are so many problems with this idea that is unsettling that people would try. Already we are having unintended consequences of things we thought were good. Antibiotics for one and antibiotic resistant drugs, like MERSA and TB, or look at genetic engeneered crops that the problems they are having with resistent pests. DNA is much much more complicated in animals, plants are very very versitle, even right now we could change DNA for a trait the problem is we don't know how it will affect everything else, you need to know what an intron extron are to really understand what I'm getting at. I does sound like a cool idea but we simply don't know if a year, 50 years, or 100 yars later what the consequences are.

Thanks for those who mentioned female characters, I'm going to look them up when I have time. I'm noticing that I may have been too quick to write off Buffy.

 

[Gryphos]

Thanks for those who mentioned female characters, I'm going to look them up when I have time. I'm noticing that I may have been too quick to write off Buffy.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! – hold the goddamn phone... You don't like Buffy?

 

[ascanius]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! – hold the goddamn phone... You don't like Buffy?

Umm..... the last time I watched it no, not at all, though I may have to try it out again. It was years ago that I last tried to watch it, so who knows.

 

[Devor]

Hey, after a lot of thought I've decided that I have to agree with Gryphos . . .

I mean, what the hell ascanius? Buffy's awesome. Get past season 1 and you'll be hooked.