|
new phone who dis posted:This is the placebo effect, not the patriarchy. Also, I'm not co-signing on biological determinism, but you don't have to do so to account for the fact that groups of people sometimes make different choices and it's not always because of your chosen ideology.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
rudatron posted:The size of my dick + balls prevents people moving in front of me, and takes up seating space on the opposite side of the bus, for seats facing the center, but the people either side of me are fine. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Okay, but we also know that gender norms exist, and they have a measurable impact on behavior, even if they're not actually true - there's been a study done which, by telling one group of women that 'women do badly' on that test, and not telling your control group that, the control group will actually perform much better. We also know that studies done to try and prove biological determinism have usually failed, or use dubious methodology, that's later overturned.  back here and note that this phenomenon - Stereotype Threat - currently looks like it's gonna join power posing research and a bunch of other terrible stuff on the long list of unreplicable findings our field is plagued by. (On the other hand, probably the biggest loser of the replication crisis is anti-feminist big shot R Baumeister, which fills me with intense joy. Also a number of "this is why women like pink" evopsych)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
How about that study that 'showed' that's presenting evidence against people's beliefs only makes them dig in harder (i.e. reasoning doesn't convince people)? I can't count the number of times that study has been cited by people here, on SA, to justify acting like an anti-social tool, because debate 'doesnt work' (only shaming works), but my suspicion is that the study itself just had a moron/arrogant dick as the guy running it. Misandry!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:How about that study that 'showed' that's presenting evidence against people's beliefs only makes them dig in harder (i.e. reasoning doesn't convince people)? I can't count the number of times that study has been cited by people here, on SA, to justify acting like an anti-social tool, because debate 'doesnt work' (only shaming works), but my suspicion is that the study itself just had a moron/arrogant dick as the guy running it. There is, however, a bunch of research arguing rather strongly against people's reasons for some position being necessarily very similar to their causes. I.e., you ask somebody why they oppose gay marriage/incest/high or low taxes, and what they'll come up with is probably extremely faulty reasoning, but their personal convictions will be extremely strong nevertheless, and only very little open to reasoning in the short term. That doesn't mean shaming works, however; in fact, the main researcher behind this finding would argue that people first and foremost completely fail at even understanding where people with different political opinions are coming from; they completely lack the cognitive empathy. I hope that's not just empty rambling to you, but that's some of the stuff I've been going through on the topic as of recently. Edit: lol 
Cingulate fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I legit have never run into mansplaining or manspreading outside of internet arguments about feminism. Like I know some people tweet this poo poo, but I've only ever seen the tweets in said internet arguments. I really don't see them being all that relevant to anything. However. Mansplaining and Manspreading both seem to miss the point. Like mansplaining seems to be about men assuming women don't know poo poo than with the actual explaining. Manspreading is about the person lacking consideration and nothing to do with the spread itself. It should be mansuming and mansideration. It's no wonder they've been relegated to dumb internet wars. 
Futuresight fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I legit have never run into mansplaining or manspreading outside of internet arguments about feminism. Like I know some people tweet this poo poo, but I've only ever seen the tweets in said internet arguments. I really don't see them being all that relevant to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Women online seem very worked up about what they describe as a common occurrence but literally no woman in my life is comfortable enough around me to share these life experiences with me
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
I'm talking about the terms. The terms. I'm saying that complaining about people using the terms mansplaining and manspreading is kinda ridiculous in a anti-feminism sense because you don't run into the discussion very often as a man unless you go looking for it. It's not like privilege that gets thrown around everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I'm talking about the terms. The terms. I'm saying that complaining about people using the terms mansplaining and manspreading is kinda ridiculous in a anti-feminism sense because you don't run into the discussion very often as a man unless you go looking for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Well it wasn't a very serious post so I didn't think I'd have people taking it seriously. I even brought my mate along to help with that.Not saying it's people's fault for assuming I was very seriously attacking feminism though given the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Well it wasn't a very serious post so I didn't think I'd have people taking it seriously. so you could do :trebloc: and they'd stare at each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
I am convinced that no feminist on the planet cares as much about "manspreading" as new phone does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I am convinced that no feminist on the planet cares as much about "manspreading" as new phone does. There's always somebody. Not like there is only a limited supply of fucks to give and they're being diverted away from important areas or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's always somebody. I'm not saying it's the only thing he cares about, I'm saying he's massively and dishonestly misrepresenting it's importance in current feminist thought, possibly because it's a simple concept he can actually understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Statistically speaking, the probability of those choices should be the same for both men and women, but they're patently not. People do not make their choices in a vacuum, they have to deal with the world as it is, then later they rationalize it. But there are plenty of things outside their control. It's not just a matter of 'choice', that choice had to be meaningful, which means that the options open to people should be free of stupid things, like gender norms. There's no reason to believe this, though. Men and women can (and do) have different preferences across all sorts of things. Should people be socialized differently so that they don't have different preferneces? That is a value judgement I don't think anyone is qualified to make for anyone else. edit: Like... Changing institutional cultures so that women aren't creeped out of pursuing science careers - something I would def. agree with. Shifting the way girl children are socialized to push them toward pursuing science careers - implies value judgements about What Is Good For Girls that I don't think anyone should feel comfortable making. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Of course not, I'm not suggesting that people should be socialized to be the same, that's absurd. My point is that, in aggregate, everything should 'add up to zero' as it were - for every tendency to go in one direction, there should be one to go in the other, and that these factors should be the same for both sexes. The fact that they're patently not, suggests that there is something wrong. I can't believe how difficult this very simple point is to understand. Okay, think of it this way. I try and get a crowd of people to either bet heads or tails on a coin flip. Regardless of whatever the individual person prefers, I should get about an even split in the population. If I don't, then something weird is happening, there's some other factor at play that is making people value one outcome more than another. But at no point do I ever want to try and force any individual person into flipping their choice, just to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
The value judgement at play here is 'Women, as a group, should be economically independent, which means that, as a group, they should be distributed across the economy about the same as men".
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Chances are exceedingly unlikely that on some aspects, men and women are not sent on different cognitive paths to at least some minuscule extent purely by biology. The question is more, is what we seeing a reflection of an in principle perfectly equal society interacting with these differences of unknown strength and direction? Which I consider almost as implausible as the idea that there's nothing biological going on at all. But it's not that you can outright dismiss the idea that at least some differences are entirely, or overwhelmingly, up to biology, and that even in the best of worlds, women would be 53% of nurses and 54% of pirates and 47% of prison inmates (assuming your utopia has all 3), and that what we are seeing currently is to some extent, but not much, distorted. I'd be genuinely surprised if anybody in here would claim just that though. It's also entirely possible that biology points in one direction, and our society just in the other (i.e., societies over the ages have constantly changed their views of if women or men want sex more, and at least one group here has by necessity to be wrong, and it's not clear if ours does or doesn't).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
There's already some factor at play, with respect to muscle mass and I guess height? The problem comes to when we hit behavioral differences, because it's hard to separate it out from ideology, and ideology uses that assumption of 'biotruths' to justify it's own existence (and perpetuate the socialization factors). I personally err on the side 'no difference', because that's the parsimonious answer: there is no loving reason that any of that poo poo makes sense, and a whole lot of reasons to suspect it's all self-serving bullshit on the part of people benefiting from the system/with a vested interest in perpetuating those 'biotruths'. But even if you disagree with me, there's absolutely no way for it to account for the vast sex differences you see in stuff like engineering, IT and the sciences (widely recognized as careers of the future), you'd only reasonably expect something like a ~5% difference. Either way, there's no reason to permit the existence of socialization factors, individually people should be naturally attracted to what they're good at (and, ideally, what is also in demand). The critical part is removing dumb poo poo like 'oh well women don't do that' as a reason to not do something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's no reason to believe this, though. Men and women can (and do) have different preferences across all sorts of things. I feel pretty qualified to say that there's no good reason to tell a small girl growing up that she shouldn't want to be a scientist or an astronaut because those aren't suitable for girls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should people be socialized differently so that they don't have different preferneces? That is a value judgement I don't think anyone is qualified to make for anyone else. I think the disconnect is that you're assuming that no pressure currently exists today that pushes girls away from pursuing science. Most feminists would argue that telling girls "What's Good For Girls" is already happening, and if we stop doing that, then we should expect things to be more equitable. For what it's worth, I think at least in my experience (Toronto, Canada), the pendulum has already swung quite a ways in terms of encouraging girls to get into STEM stuff - I work for a company that does coding camps and classes for kids, and the marketing is almost solely to girls (they actually started with a girl specific name before changing things to be more gender neutral). I might be in a bit of a progressive bubble, but I think there's promising signs. The big problem is for stuff like career choices this stuff takes a long time to have an effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:This dumb thread is moving fast, but you may be missing the point that people are surprised a woman would vote for trump (not necessarily that they didn't vote for Hillary), because he hates and demeans women. Plus the whole access to healthcare, equal rights thing that makes voting republican contradictory to your self interests, unless you're a very rich woman I guess. Oh please don't get me wrong, I'm baffled by the whole thing and I can't fathom why a woman would support Trump. I remember I once asked a Goobergate-supporting woman why she allied herself with a group that harassed women on the Internet. She said her beliefs weren't dictated by what's between her legs. After this election, The Guardian published some interviews with women who supported Trump even after the infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" tape. A common theme was they were willing to overlook all that because they were more concerned about illegal immigrants and terrorism. Now, as a man and a non-American, I can only look at this from outside. But it strikes me that reproductive rights and equality are very much a feminist issue. Unfortunately, it seems that not all women hold feminist beliefs, contrary to self-interest and moral rightness. That's the crux of my argument here - personal politics and immediate concerns often supersede longer-term concepts like equality and common good. Women and men both are selfish, short-sighted animals. That's not to say it's pointless to fight for equality, just that it's hard to rely on other folks to pull in the same direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Women are half of the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:Oh please don't get me wrong, I'm baffled by the whole thing and I can't fathom why a woman would support Trump. One theme of feminism is that we are all affected by the patriarchal values society instilled in us. I've heard lots of women say derogatory things about women in power or who specifically voted against Hillary because she's a women. Most of those people probably view themselves as less capable than a man. That kind of self loathing is sad and hard to understand. (We still need feminism)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Reproductive rights and equality are not directly relevant to a lot of women though, or at least not perceived to be by them. If you're comfortable where you are or there are non-gender barriers holding you down then equality doesn't matter to you. Same for reproductive rights if you never intend to have an abortion and can afford all the expenses around reproduction. A lot of reproductive rights revolves around access for poorer women because women of greater means can just circumvent things like states rights and pay for the stuff not covered by insurance, etc. And about Trump's pussy grabbing, he's not grabbing their pussy is he? I mean, Republicans are anti-human in plenty of ways and humans still vote for them. Without a sense of solidarity there's plenty of ways for a selfish rear end in a top hat to ignore the consequences to others, no matter how much those people are like them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:One theme of feminism is that we are all affected by the patriarchal values society instilled in us. I've heard lots of women say derogatory things about women in power or who specifically voted against Hillary because she's a women. Most of those people probably view themselves as less capable than a man. That kind of self loathing is sad and hard to understand. (We still need feminism) That is a good point - I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. I'll modify my stance that, while I'm still not surprised people voted against their self interest, that is not a case against the need to continue demanding equality
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:That is a good point - I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. In related news, Facebook tells me there's a Pro-Life march in Washington DC today. Also apparently a study that shows girls as young as 6 believe that they can't do the things boys/men can, and stop trying novel activities as a consequence was just published. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Voting against your interests is a time-honored American tradition, and definitely not exclusive to women. Poor people have been voting against their own interest since at least the 80's. (To be fair, it's not like anyone is really in their interest, but they go with the worse of two choices).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Voting against your interests is a time-honored American tradition, and definitely not exclusive to women. Poor people have been voting against their own interest since at least the 80's. (To be fair, it's not like anyone is really in their interest, but they go with the worse of two choices). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I feel pretty qualified to say that there's no good reason to tell a small girl growing up that she shouldn't want to be a scientist or an astronaut because those aren't suitable for girls. Women are actually more tolerant of g-forces on average. Both by being shorter which makes people more tolerant and by having body shapes that are more tolerant on average. Oddly, we have an actual example of a biotruth where women are objectively better at something but weird how that doesn't translate to them dominating the field. In fact women were banned from being fighter pilots until 1993 entirely. It's almost like the whole idea that everyone naturally sorted into jobs they are inherently good at is junk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Women are actually more tolerant of g-forces on average. Both by being shorter which makes people more tolerant and by having body shapes that are more tolerant on average. yep. remember that the first "computers" were women. back in the early days of statistical analysis, for example, statistics labs would hire a large number of women as "computers" to manually calculate complicated functions. the reason for hiring women was that they were seen as naturally docile and patient and thus suited to do calculations, whereas men were seen as too impulsive for such work. then calculations became more and more important and more and more men entered the field, pushed women out, pay rose and all of a sudden people were telling each other that only the male analytical mind was capable of performing this work, while women were too emotional. it's bullshit, absolutely all of it is complete and utter bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
I've been reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and, while Yuval Harari makes some questionable conclusions, he raises an interesting point. There's really no biological reason for the separation of the sexes. No reason emperors are men and property follows patrilineally in western society. I mean you can draw any conclusion you want from  - men seized power because hunting and gathering took less time than raising children, so they had the luxury of power struggles; women are temperamentally unsuited to control; men are stronger; etc. It's all bullshit conjecture.Which, oh dear, sounds like the core concept of patriarchy to me. Anyway what I'm driving at is that it is total crap that 6 year old girls have internalized this nonsense. A little child should be free to explore and find her own interests, not be beholden to some rigid and outmoded vision of society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Women are actually more tolerant of g-forces on average. Both by being shorter which makes people more tolerant and by having body shapes that are more tolerant on average. Is this actually true? I've searched before and I've found military studies finding no significant differences in G-tolerance (ie. women should not be excluded from fighter programs for that reason) but I've never actually found a study to support this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Is this actually true? I've searched before and I've found military studies finding no significant differences in G-tolerance (ie. women should not be excluded from fighter programs for that reason) but I've never actually found a study to support this. Women are smaller and that is the largest factor. Shorter and smaller framed. If you control for that the difference goes away. But yeah, of course it does. That is what the advantage is. It's not the idea X chromosomes are magically counteracting gravity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
botany posted:yep. remember that the first "computers" were women. back in the early days of statistical analysis, for example, statistics labs would hire a large number of women as "computers" to manually calculate complicated functions. the reason for hiring women was that they were seen as naturally docile and patient and thus suited to do calculations, whereas men were seen as too impulsive for such work. then calculations became more and more important and more and more men entered the field, pushed women out, pay rose and all of a sudden people were telling each other that only the male analytical mind was capable of performing this work, while women were too emotional. It is totally true that there was and still is, to a lesser extent, systemic bigotry against women in engineering. However another reason for why this happened, which is never mentioned when this example is trotted out on this message board, is that engineering professions too have been affected by automation technology, and now there are fewer lower-skilled 'engineering tech' type roles than there used to be. Software automation has eliminated many of the lower skilled positions in engineering that used to exist. Before you trot out 'but what about Grace Hopper', yes Grace Hopper was an extremely talented engineer and made important contributions. However to imply that all women in computer programming in those days were as talented as her and did the same types of jobs as her, which is what people often do on this message board, is pretty misleading. Maybe in a different world, the early women programmers would have had more opportunities and there would have been more Grace Hoppers though. I won't argue with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It is totally true that there was and still is, to a lesser extent, systemic bigotry against women in engineering. However another reason for why this happened, which is never mentioned when this example is trotted out on this message board, is that engineering professions too have been affected by automation technology, and now there are fewer lower-skilled 'engineering tech' type roles than there used to be. Software automation has eliminated many of the lower skilled positions in engineering that used to exist. weird how the fewer jobs affected women disproportionately
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It is totally true that there was and still is, to a lesser extent, systemic bigotry against women in engineering. However another reason for why this happened, which is never mentioned when this example is trotted out on this message board, is that engineering professions too have been affected by automation technology, and now there are fewer lower-skilled 'engineering tech' type roles than there used to be. Software automation has eliminated many of the lower skilled positions in engineering that used to exist. that is completely besides the point I was making. my point was that there is a strong tendency to justify gender imbalances in certain jobs after the fact -- if a job is predominantly worked by men, there will be biotruths to explain why that is natural and just, and if a job is worked predominantly by women, then biotruths will explain that. the early computing stuff is a good example because the shift in explanation happened to literally the same job. women worked the early supercomputers as well (bletchley park, manhattan project etc), until they didn't. men worked the exact same machines, all of a sudden you have a biotruth explanation for why it couldn't be any other way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
botany posted:that is completely besides the point I was making. my point was that there is a strong tendency to justify gender imbalances in certain jobs after the fact -- if a job is predominantly worked by men, there will be biotruths to explain why that is natural and just, and if a job is worked predominantly by women, then biotruths will explain that. the early computing stuff is a good example because the shift in explanation happened to literally the same job. women worked the early supercomputers as well (bletchley park, manhattan project etc), until they didn't. men worked the exact same machines, all of a sudden you have a biotruth explanation for why it couldn't be any other way. Also stuff like cooking. Stuff that is always the top "women's work" explained by biotruth nonsense suddenly become not that when you get to the highest paying jobs. Like people will go on about how food preparation is biologically a women's function until oops it turns out female chefs are almost nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:I've been reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and, while Yuval Harari makes some questionable conclusions, he raises an interesting point. I'm going to check out this book, but some of these just seems to go against common sense. I agree that a lot of gender discrimination and oppression gets brushed off with , but to say that there's absolutely no biological basis for any difference whatsoever for our social behaviour seems wrong. Our closest animal relatives absolutely have sexual dimorphism in their cultural behaviour - it would be normal to assume that there's *some* degree of this in humans too.Where goes off the rails is ascribing every part of our culture that treats men and women different to biology, not by saying that there's a biological difference between men and women in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:44
|
|