Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on) Forum

[ccs224]

Yes, I am obviously referring to biological predispositions. Certain counter-cultures (namely the "emo" counter-culture) would like to do away with tendencies found in males in females. That is a personal choice, and I say they have every right to do that, I just personally think that is silly.

While you and I certainly seem to disagree on a lot of issues, I would like to say that you have read me wrong based on your calling me "bro." You probably have a view of me as being a business management frat president type that does yager bombs and utters the phrase "dude-bro" on a regular basis. I am, however, nothing like this at all. While I am in a fraternity, I do not like it at all as I don't drink very often and find the pseudo-macho postering to be reflective of their insecurity. I am a theatre major, and have had a lead roles in a number of different plays. Currently I am cast as Malvolio in Twlfth Night. I also am in the Dance Ensemble, I take a yoga class, and I love reading classical literature, primarily drama of course. Why am I telling you this? Because I don't want you to think of me as something that I am not merely because I have somewhat traditional views. I admit that those views can be a bit narrow minded, but I am entitled to my opinions just as you are entitled to yours. You and I obviously choose to lead very different lives. Great for us, whatever floats our respective boats, right? I apoligize for referring to you as an "idiot," earlier in this thread, that was uncalled for. Basically, what I am trying to say is that you and could continue this debate forever, and neither one is going to persuade the other. I certainly see the validity in your arguments - gender is far more ambiguous than mainstream society throughout the centuries has acknowledged. You are right there. Having ackowledged that, I hope you and I can just agree to disagree on the arguments we have made and move on. I have nothing against you personally, and I wholly accept your lifestyle choices even though I would never engage in them myself.

Scion, the addition of bro to an early post was not an attempt to out you as a member of any particular and despised lifestyle, but simply a terribly humorous addition meant to make the post ironically more relevant to the original thread topic. All I know about you is that apparently accidentally joined one of those gay-for-pay "frat" websites instead of an actual frat, know your mother's preferences in men and women's appearances, dislike asymmetrical haircuts and female body builders, and now that you are a thesbian.

The point of my posts is not to attack you, but to counter the ridiculous statements being bandied about on these threads about what counts as a "real" man/woman. We may not agree on our arguments, but I hope that I have shown that "traditional" accounts of gender are supported by little else but tradition, and pretty recent traditions at that.

You seem to be really bothered by "emo's." As someone who grew up when "emo" was just being established (that is, the mid-early 1990s, with bands like Sunny Day Real Estate, etc) and to which current youth trends now called emo are only loosely related, I would assure you that emo kids aren't the hermaphroditic, gender bending, pinko crazy crazy counterculture you might expect. They, like pretty much everyone, are pretty banal.

[ughOSU]

bro

I probably am pretty bro-ish... I am certainly a lot more bro-ish than most of the people posting here. I mean I drank busch light throughout college (minus one semester where I exclusively drank keystone ice and don't remember much of it).

[Borhas]

a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart

You would still have a tautological argument if you claim that there is an universal predisposition to one cultural norm that simply isn't enacted universally. What would make dominant cultural norms any more likely to be the universal norm than any other current or historical gender norms?

What's circular about saying some biological characteristics that differ from males to females, let's say hormone levels, cause predispositions towards different sorts of behavior (let's say masculine and feminine)?

[daesonesb]

This nerd fight is very un bro-like, bros. Y'all need to sack up and pound down some Keystones.

Keystone sucks so much ass. I really hope you are joking. If you are, , if you aren't, I'll be happy to suggest some real beers.

keystone is a bro beer (more of a Deep South Bro Beer). It goes down a beer bong like water.

Other bro beers include bud light (Beerpong frat Bros all over USA), Heineken (Bros in the city), Coors Light (Canadian Bros, surprisingly) and MGD (Country Bros). Bros experiment with better (but still commonplace) beers like stella artois and becks, but at the end of the day, their brohood precludes them from truly enjoying these beverages.

[Borhas]

This nerd fight is very un bro-like, bros. Y'all need to sack up and pound down some Keystones.

Keystone sucks so much ass. I really hope you are joking. If you are, , if you aren't, I'll be happy to suggest some real beers.

keystone is a bro beer (more of a Deep South Bro Beer). It goes down a beer bong like water.

Other bro beers include bud light (Beerpong frat Bros all over USA), Heineken (Bros in the city), Coors Light (Canadian Bros, surprisingly) and MGD (Country Bros). Bros experiment with better (but still commonplace) beers like stella artois and becks, but at the end of the day, their brohood precludes them from truly enjoying these beverages.

Natural Light

poor freshman bros

[daesonesb]

This nerd fight is very un bro-like, bros. Y'all need to sack up and pound down some Keystones.

Keystone sucks so much ass. I really hope you are joking. If you are, , if you aren't, I'll be happy to suggest some real beers.

keystone is a bro beer (more of a Deep South Bro Beer). It goes down a beer bong like water.

Other bro beers include bud light (Beerpong frat Bros all over USA), Heineken (Bros in the city), Coors Light (Canadian Bros, surprisingly) and MGD (Country Bros). Bros experiment with better (but still commonplace) beers like stella artois and becks, but at the end of the day, their brohood precludes them from truly enjoying these beverages.

Natural Light

poor freshman bros

Miller Highlife and Schlitz Bull Ice (Both for Old Man Bros)

[ccs224]

a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart

You would still have a tautological argument if you claim that there is an universal predisposition to one cultural norm that simply isn't enacted universally. What would make dominant cultural norms any more likely to be the universal norm than any other current or historical gender norms?

What's circular about saying some biological characteristics that differ from males to females, let's say hormone levels, cause predispositions towards different sorts of behavior (let's say masculine and feminine)?

That wouldn't necessarily be a tautological argument, but it would be a problematic one. Your original statement, however, read (to me) more like "There is a natural predisposition to behavior that is currently dominant and we can know that such behavior is natural and predisposed (as opposed to culturally constructed and enforced) because it is currently dominant." If you want to say that there are hormonal causes for behavior, there's a lot to back that up, but not enough to make it an essential factor in social roles and manifestations of gender identity, nor to counter the argument than physiological desires are translated through culture much more than they are 'naturally' (that is, without the mitigation of a non-physiological system) expressed. There are, of course, plenty of 'aberrations' from the physiological norms, like anatomically 'correct' women who have XY chromosomes, third-sexed and ambiguously-sexed
people, hormonally 'normal' people who do not fit ideas about what hormonally-normed behavior should be, etc., that would also make a purely physiological definition of behavior unsatisfying.

Also, I apologize for the "excessive" use of "scare-quotes," but conversations such as these really give me no alternative. And, though this is now a thousand times removed from the original purpose of this thread, I have to say this types of conversations remain quite entertaining, at least for me.

[ccs224]

Schlitz

Oh gag.

[ccs224]

a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart

You would still have a tautological argument if you claim that there is an universal predisposition to one cultural norm that simply isn't enacted universally. What would make dominant cultural norms any more likely to be the universal norm than any other current or historical gender norms?

What's circular about saying some biological characteristics that differ from males to females, let's say hormone levels, cause predispositions towards different sorts of behavior (let's say masculine and feminine)?

Also, I would say that such an attempt to explain behavior is too inductive to really stand up. You would be looking for a evidence ("Let's say X...") to justify a predetermined conclusion (behavior is inherently masculine or feminine, however defined).

[Borhas]

If you want to say that there are hormonal causes for behavior, there's a lot to back that up, but not enough to make it an essential factor in social roles and manifestations of gender identity, nor to counter the argument than physiological desires are translated through culture much more than they are 'naturally' (that is, without the mitigation of a non-physiological system) expressed. There are, of course, plenty of 'aberrations' from the physiological norms, like anatomically 'correct' women who have XY chromosomes, third-sexed and ambiguously-sexed
people, hormonally 'normal' people who do not fit ideas about what hormonally-normed behavior should be, etc., that would also make a purely physiological definition of behavior unsatisfying.

oh yeah I recognize that a totally physiological definition is insufficient, I was mostly pointing out that there IS some biological explanation independent of culture. I think it's most likely that small biological predispositions lead to changes in behavior which lead to some cultural norms which end up accentuating the distinctions even more.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's really worthwhile to mess with gender norms too much. Societies tend to prosper with greater sophistication (more specialized roles for citizens) and a different role is definitely beneficial. Basically I'm saying that it's good to have a society of Men and Women instead of just male and female humans. Although, I will say that there may be a role for gender neutral humans as well... as long as they are used to compliment existing gender roles, not replace them.

[daesonesb]

Where the pederasty really goes down...

[ccs224]

oh yeah I recognize that a totally physiological definition is insufficient, I was mostly pointing out that there IS some biological explanation independent of culture. I think it's most likely that small biological predispositions lead to changes in behavior which lead to some cultural norms which end up accentuating the distinctions even more.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's really worthwhile to mess with gender norms too much. Societies tend to prosper with greater sophistication (more specialized roles for citizens) and a different role is definitely beneficial. Basically I'm saying that it's good to have a society of Men and Women instead of just male and female humans. Although, I will say that there may be a role for gender neutral humans as well... as long as they are used to compliment existing gender roles, not replace them.

See, that's the problem with these arguments though. Replace gender there for race, or language, or culture and you would see how problematic such as position is and why those of us who do not "prosper" (how would you define that?) as greatly in such a system find these arguments distasteful. I, for one, would not like being considered not "Man" or "Woman" in a society of Men and Women, nor as just a "compliment" to someone elses' position.

[Borhas]

oh yeah I recognize that a totally physiological definition is insufficient, I was mostly pointing out that there IS some biological explanation independent of culture. I think it's most likely that small biological predispositions lead to changes in behavior which lead to some cultural norms which end up accentuating the distinctions even more.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's really worthwhile to mess with gender norms too much. Societies tend to prosper with greater sophistication (more specialized roles for citizens) and a different role is definitely beneficial. Basically I'm saying that it's good to have a society of Men and Women instead of just male and female humans. Although, I will say that there may be a role for gender neutral humans as well... as long as they are used to compliment existing gender roles, not replace them.

See, that's the problem with these arguments though. Replace gender there for race, or language, or culture and you would see how problematic such as position is and why those of us who do not "prosper" (how would you define that?) as greatly in such a system find these arguments distasteful. I, for one, would not like being considered not "Man" or "Woman" in a society of Men and Women, nor as just a "compliment" to someone elses' position.

prosper? combination of survival and happiness

Race, yeah that one is pretty useless, but different languages and cultures are usually helpful. Different cultures are helpful because at different points in history some cultures may be better suited than others, and having a human society with many cultures is not too different than thinking of a species having a high amount of genetic variation. Except with cultures it's not genes that help a group adapt to a changing environment, but instead customs and beliefs. If humanity was one culture and due to some calamity or another went through abrupt change then that singular culture may not be enough to maintain our species. Different languages can express concepts in different and sometimes complimentary ways (though this causes problems too).
====
It's up to you to find an affirmative identity instead of notMan or notWoman. Once you do society can integrate you. Complementing others isn't a bad thing. Lawyers complement cops, farmers, etc, everyone does it for everyone else... the more specialized the better we will be able to prosper. It's through your specialized role that society will come to accept you, and it's one path for you to have a meaningful life.

[reasonabledoubt]

Where the pederasty really goes down...

Blatant anti-hellenism trolling.

[daesonesb]

Where the pederasty really goes down...

Blatant anti-hellenism trolling.

Excellent Tar.

[Borhas]

Where the pederasty really goes down...

looks about right

--ImageRemoved--

[ccs224]

oh yeah I recognize that a totally physiological definition is insufficient, I was mostly pointing out that there IS some biological explanation independent of culture. I think it's most likely that small biological predispositions lead to changes in behavior which lead to some cultural norms which end up accentuating the distinctions even more.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's really worthwhile to mess with gender norms too much. Societies tend to prosper with greater sophistication (more specialized roles for citizens) and a different role is definitely beneficial. Basically I'm saying that it's good to have a society of Men and Women instead of just male and female humans. Although, I will say that there may be a role for gender neutral humans as well... as long as they are used to compliment existing gender roles, not replace them.

See, that's the problem with these arguments though. Replace gender there for race, or language, or culture and you would see how problematic such as position is and why those of us who do not "prosper" (how would you define that?) as greatly in such a system find these arguments distasteful. I, for one, would not like being considered not "Man" or "Woman" in a society of Men and Women, nor as just a "compliment" to someone elses' position.

prosper? combination of survival and happiness

Race, yeah that one is pretty useless, but different languages and cultures are usually helpful. Different cultures are helpful because at different points in history some cultures may be better suited than others, and having a human society with many cultures is not too different than thinking of a species having a high amount of genetic variation. Except with cultures it's not genes that help a group adapt to a changing environment, but instead customs and beliefs. If humanity was one culture and due to some calamity or another went through abrupt change then that singular culture may not be enough to maintain our species. Different languages can express concepts in different and sometimes complimentary ways (though this causes problems too).
====
It's up to you to find an affirmative identity instead of notMan or notWoman. Once you do society can integrate you. Complementing others isn't a bad thing. Lawyers complement cops, farmers, etc, everyone does it for everyone else... the more specialized the better we will be able to prosper. It's through your specialized role that society will come to accept you, and it's one path for you to have a meaningful life.

Oh man, where to start. Ha - actually, I think I'll just pass on this one. I think most people would be able to guess what I would say anyway.

[Pearalegal]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

[scionb4]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

I think it's shocking and humbling that you took the time to read an entire thread.

[Pearalegal]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

I think it's shocking and humbling that you took the time to read an entire thread.

Burn?

[ughOSU]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

a few people keep trying to talk about serious shit while i'm just bro/anti-bro trolling...

Now watch carefully as I bring every theme in this entire thread together from the bro/anti-bro trolling to the gender equality issues, in the form of linking a youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaS6mlUS5Kw

BAM!!!

[scionb4]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

I think it's shocking and humbling that you took the time to read an entire thread.

Burn?

No, it's just I wouldn't, I guess. I agree with you though, this trhread has covered a wide range of topics. I don't know whether to regret starting this thread or feel a certain sense of pride.

[Borhas]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

a few people keep trying to talk about serious shit while i'm just bro/anti-bro trolling...

Now watch carefully as I bring every theme in this entire thread together from the bro/anti-bro trolling to the gender equality issues, in the form of linking a youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaS6mlUS5Kw

BAM!!!

174

[daesonesb]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

a few people keep trying to talk about serious shit while i'm just bro/anti-bro trolling...

Now watch carefully as I bring every theme in this entire thread together from the bro/anti-bro trolling to the gender equality issues, in the form of linking a youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaS6mlUS5Kw

BAM!!!

i lolled

[reasonabledoubt]

Wow.

I just read this thread in full. The scope of the topics covered is both shocking and humbling.

a few people keep trying to talk about serious shit while i'm just bro/anti-bro trolling...

Now watch carefully as I bring every theme in this entire thread together from the bro/anti-bro trolling to the gender equality issues, in the form of linking a youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaS6mlUS5Kw

BAM!!!

This, although full of lulz, makes me want to live in another country, one where there are no bros. Bros are like the McDonalds of people. Something just occured to me - I realized what Bros really are: thinly disguised rednecks. They are rednecks who go to (primarily) big state schools, shoplift a few polo shirts from the strip malls their sisters work at, then head off to State U to drink cheap beer and spread stds.