|
enki42 posted: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 "There is probably some truth to this, somewhere" -says guy told that he is the objective best race and gender.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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 19:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:"There is probably some truth to this, somewhere" Are you trying to make the point that humans are the only species on the earth without sexual dymorphism? I'm 100% of the opinion, and I said right in my post, that making unsupported claims just because there's probably some social behaviour that's influenced by biology is bullshit. So either you didn't notice that part in your rush to get a sweet burn posted, or you actually think there's zero difference biologically between sexes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are there actually examples of people thinking food preparation is biologically suited towards women rather than food preparation being household work suited to women since they are ~biologically~ good at taking care of babies, and need to stay home and do housework anyways? (Note: I don't think women should be expected to do housework, just that of the people who believe women should cook, it's because they think women should raise children and maintain a house) I'm earnestly curious what sort of characteristic someone could think of that would make someone good at food prep that is gender related. the biotruths icon is a berry because of the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are there actually examples of people thinking food preparation is biologically suited towards women rather than food preparation being household work suited to women since they are ~biologically~ good at taking care of babies, and need to stay home and do housework anyways? (Note: I don't think women should be expected to do housework, just that of the people who believe women should cook, it's because they think women should raise children and maintain a house) I'm earnestly curious what sort of characteristic someone could think of that would make someone good at food prep that is gender related. i think it's more that women are expected to take care of day to day maintenance tasks like typical meal food prep, where men get to handle prestige or event food prep like how grilling, barbecuing etc. are highly masculine skills in america
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
I'm saying that using biotruths to explain the social separation of the genders in terms of power doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. There's no biological reason that, say, it couldn't have been a woman to become Khan of the Mongols and conquer half the world. That's a big point raised in the book and I can't come up with a solid counterargument to it, so I'm inclined to agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the biotruths icon is a berry because of the idea. boner confessor posted:i think it's more that women are expected to take care of day to day maintenance tasks like typical meal food prep, where men get to handle prestige or event food prep like how grilling, barbecuing etc. are highly masculine skills in america twodot fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i think it's more that women are expected to take care of day to day maintenance tasks like typical meal food prep, where men get to handle prestige or event food prep like how grilling, barbecuing etc. are highly masculine skills in america Well also, men take cooking and become professional chefs, and women get kind of screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah I totally agree, but this is "the patriarchy exists" not "Women are biologically better at mundane food preparation than men". the subtext is "women are better suited for daily drudgery because men should be sitting around, like, inventing culture and history and stuff with their big superior man minds"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the subtext is "women are better suited for daily drudgery because men should be sitting around, like, inventing culture and history and stuff with their big superior man minds"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
How's that quote go? "I run the household, manage the finances, and raise the children. So, I prefer to let my husband handle the important things, like whether to go to war in the Falklands." Something like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
enki42 posted: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 there are absolutely biological differences between the sexes but in our culture they come into the equation in just about no case at all. there's a reason there are no unisex heavyweight boxing championships, but literally every job that doesn't require men to be in peak physical shape at the top of their strength and also 25 can also be done by a woman. looking at some dayjob being worked by a pudgy balding 40something and concluding that biological differences give that guy an advantage over a woman is completely laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:I'm saying that using biotruths to explain the social separation of the genders in terms of power doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. There's no biological reason that, say, it couldn't have been a woman to become Khan of the Mongols and conquer half the world. It's just not a great way to look at it. There have definitely been female great leaders, that's a thing that happens. Joan of Arc, Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher, whatev. The person at the top is just a single person though and tends to defy statistics. Biological differences are going to be statistical, so looking at single individuals like that doesn't tell you much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
enki42 posted: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 Absent sufficient evidence of what the biological basis is, and given that we *do* have some evidence as well as reasonably well described mechanisms of what the sociological basis is, yes, we assume there isn't any. There might be, but it's cargo cult science to assume it right now. Also note that what you're referring to in our closest relatives may also be genuinely cultural, without a biological basis. It's obviously much simpler, but apes are capable of passing along habits and ingraining behaviour in their young the same way humans are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
botany posted:there are absolutely biological differences between the sexes but in our culture they come into the equation in just about no case at all. there's a reason there are no unisex heavyweight boxing championships, but literally every job that doesn't require men to be in peak physical shape at the top of their strength and also 25 can also be done by a woman. looking at some dayjob being worked by a pudgy balding 40something and concluding that biological differences give that guy an advantage over a woman is completely laughable. quote:Absent sufficient evidence of what the biological basis is, and given that we *do* have some evidence as well as reasonably well described mechanisms of what the sociological basis is, yes, we assume there isn't any. There might be, but it's cargo cult science to assume it right now. Also note that what you're referring to in our closest relatives may also be genuinely cultural, without a biological basis. It's obviously much simpler, but apes are capable of passing along habits and ingraining behaviour in their young the same way humans are. Yeah, I may have poorly worded things, but that's the point I wanted to get across. There's likely differences. Some, like physical ones, we understand fairly well. Others, like social behaviour, we know almost nothing about. Ascribing the current state of our culture and our society to anything biological is BS because there's nothing to support it, but flat out stating there's no role whatsoever is similarly BS. We frankly don't know, and we should keep looking into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
botany posted:there are absolutely biological differences between the sexes but in our culture they come into the equation in just about no case at all. there's a reason there are no unisex heavyweight boxing championships, but literally every job that doesn't require men to be in peak physical shape at the top of their strength and also 25 can also be done by a woman. Even in sports people underestimate the social factors. Or rather people are able to accept that canadians are better at hockey because of culture but if it's a race or gender show differance in skill it will be ascribed 100% of the difference to biology. Like there is no denying men and women have different musculatures and that does have effect on sports. But it also doesn't mean the exact level of differences now are the exact scientifically ordained ones. Like, the fastest female marathon runner is slower than the fastest male marathon runner, but the fastest female marathon runner today is faster than every male marathon runner from 1969. So a society that men trained like 1960s and women trained like 2017 would show women as faster. Like maybe women are biologically less able to box than men. That might be true. But are as many women trained to box? are they trained as well? by the same level of coaches? are they valued as much and do they value their boxing as much? Even if we know that under perfect equality men would beat women at boxing it's hard to say that the difference displayed is 100% organic and everything but biology is currently equal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Ascribing the current state of our culture and our society to anything biological is BS because there's nothing to support it, but flat out stating there's no role whatsoever is similarly BS. We frankly don't know, and we should keep looking into it. Unless there is some reason to suspect it to be the case in a specific instance bringing it up at all is always in a form of implication. However I don't know if you just think this because you are white. quote:you just think this because you are white. What!? I said I don't know! I am just asking questions! Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But are as many women trained to box? are they trained as well? by the same level of coaches? are they valued as much and do they value their boxing as much? Even if we know that under perfect equality men would beat women at boxing it's hard to say that the difference displayed is 100% organic and everything but biology is currently equal. One relevant point though is that professional sports are insanely competitive--everybody wants to be in pro sports and not a lot of people want to watch mediocre players play--that even very small differences in physicality can make huge differences in ability. If you use the example of men's vs. women's pro tennis, it is much harder to attribute differences in the ability between the top men's and women's players to socialization. The sport is probably one of sports which is the most acceptable for women to play yet the top men still are much better than the women in the sport. Almost all of the top men and women in the sport have the same career trajectory, starting at an early age with private lessons and/or going to the same top tennis academies, etc. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Women's national soccer teams regularly lose to under-15 junior teams with which they train. I don't see what's productive about trying to fight a battle that can't be won - women's sport is entertaining not because of the raw level of performance comparative to men's sports, but because of the sportsmanship and dynamics. People forget that athletics should be about spirited competition and self-improvement, not about trying to beat numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Ascribing the current state of our culture and our society to anything biological is BS because there's nothing to support it, but flat out stating there's no role whatsoever is similarly BS. We frankly don't know, and we should keep looking into it. An argument often made against this idea is that it is better to be ideologically committed to the idea that there are no biological differences between the sexes besides the obvious ones because if you were to discover one, it would be a politically or sociologically inconvenient truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
There might be some  stuff in there somewhere but we operate at such a high level relative to our evolutionary history these days that it would get lost in the noise of society and the complex nature of what we do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:An argument often made against this idea is that it is better to be ideologically committed to the idea that there are no biological differences between the sexes besides the obvious ones because if you were to discover one, it would be a politically or sociologically inconvenient truth. An argument made by who? This seems like a straw feminist argument of the worst kind. Who deliberately avoids finding out the truth on something because they might not like the implication of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you use the example of men's vs. women's pro tennis, it is much harder to attribute differences in the ability between the top men's and women's players to socialization. The sport is probably one of sports which is the most acceptable for women to play yet the top men still are much better than the women in the sport. Almost all of the top men and women in the sport have the same career trajectory, starting at an early age with private lessons and/or going to the same top tennis academies, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Higsian posted:There might be some Yes, competitive sports aren't a good indicator of what people can achieve in day to day life at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:I can't find the source, but with women in tennis, my understanding is that women don't get the same lessons. They generally train against women, and practice to win against women. Assuming the average man pro-tennis player hits harder/spins better/whatever, women aren't giving the opportunity to react to that style of play. They play differently because of the different limits of what they can pull off on the court - and the differences are qualitative. There's no grand conspiracy, they have training regimens designed around the highest possible levels of performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Unless there is some reason to suspect it to be the case in a specific instance bringing it up at all is always in a form of implication. However I don't know if you just think this because you are white. I didn't bring it up. Someone repeated the claim that outright claimed there was no biological basis at all, which I called BS on. I also said we don't know enough to make any claims one way or another, certainly not to the point where we can dismiss inequality by saying it's due to biology. Anyway, it's a derail. We're all on the same page. No one is making any implications. We both think that while there's differences, they're unproven and probably small enough that they don't come close to explaining inequality in our society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
enki42 posted:An argument made by who? This seems like a straw feminist argument of the worst kind. Who deliberately avoids finding out the truth on something because they might not like the implication of it? In threads like this one in the past, numerous posters here have made arguments like that one, although they usually say it in a more obfuscatory way. They say that knowledge of that sort tends to fuel ugly and hateful ideas and people, and it is better just to not talk about it at all. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
This line of argument usually leads to "well, women can't protect are freedums as the troops", which is troubling in itself since military service should be a necessary evil, not an organizing principle of society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In threads like this one in the past, numerous posters here have made arguments like that one, although they usually say it in a more obfuscatory way. They say that knowledge of that sort tends to fuel ugly and hateful ideas and people, and it is better just to not talk about it at all. you're not an accurate judge of what sa forums posters have said in the past about feminism, given that you have a well documented history of complaining about mod bias and the hivemind. it's extremely likely your recollections are colored by grudges based on internet arguments you've lost also lol at "who said this?" "well some forums posters..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In threads like this one in the past, numerous posters here have made arguments like that one, although they usually say it in a more obfuscatory way. They say that knowledge of that sort tends to fuel ugly and hateful ideas and people, and it is better just to not talk about it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:One relevant point though is that professional sports are insanely competitive--everybody wants to be in pro sports and not a lot of people want to watch mediocre players play--that even very small differences in physicality can make huge differences in ability. Once during the olympics they just changed the rules to assume canada won and shorted the tournament to just skip them ahead in the ranking because it was so pointless to even actually play the games. Cultures have an a massive massive effect on who is or isn't good at a sport. Canadians don't just have special hockey genes or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Once during the olympics they just changed the rules to assume canada won and shorted the tournament to just skip them ahead in the ranking because it was so pointless to even actually play the games. Cultures have an a massive massive effect on who is or isn't good at a sport. Canadians don't just have special hockey genes or something. You don't really get how this stuff works, do you. Team sports depend on immense infrastructure required to get and nurture future talent. Many countries do not have that. Ultimately if you took Canada and Uzbekistan and replicated the former's hockey infrastructure in the latter, they would go to to toe. But the evidence across sport disciplines and countries shows that just increasing funding and training quality just doesn't remove the gender gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You don't really get how this stuff works, do you. Team sports depend on immense infrastructure required to get and nurture future talent. Many countries do not have that. Ultimately if you took Canada and Uzbekistan and replicated the former's hockey infrastructure in the latter, they would go to to toe. But the evidence across sport disciplines and countries shows that just increasing funding and training quality just doesn't remove the gender gap. That's honestly too strong of a statement to make, given the amount and quality of data we have. The current state of "male superiority" perpetuates it in several ways - for example by making the population of future professional sportspeople more limited. If all the current (random example) top cyclists are male, then there will be more men pursuing a potential career in cycling. Assuming a normal distribution, given the fact that we're looking at the very extreme ends of the distribution, an X times larger population makes it significantly more than X times more likely that the top people will be from the larger population. And even if we do get to a point where the populations of professional cyclists are about the same, the fact that women throughout their career only compete against other women, the fact that it's "easier" to get to the top of only the women's half of the equation may very well mean that those women are less incentivized to put in extreme efforts or strategies (like doping) to get those very best performances. Unless you find an environment where there's no stigma, no previous population, no tradition, and male and female players train and compete in an entirely mixed environment, you legitimately can't claim that it's based on intrinsic gender differences. One example where the (limited) data would indicate a reversion of the gap is chess. Once female players became more universally accepted and got to train with the male players, the gap started shrinking, and it's still shrinking to this day. We don't know whether it will ever shrink to nothing, but we do know that if it does it will be a long process. Yes, there is an obvious difference (we can point out to biological systems that *maybe* make men better suited to cycling, whereas that's not true for chess), but we also don't have sufficient data to make a case that the causal relation exists in cycling. Correlation + hypothesis is not sufficient to conclude causation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
There's also the fact that women's sports are deliberately tuned to not be comparable to men's sports. Shooting in particular has been changed so that women have arbitrarily shorter rounds. Y'all morons are gonna say it's because of some bullshit about endurance, but the fact is women were getting close to overtaking men and then the rules changed to make the scores non-comparable. I don't deny that poo poo is sometimes biological but even the systems you assholes use to assert that poo poo are controlled, shaped and deliberately broken by men, only a few of whom need to be actively hateful to gently caress things up for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Cultures have an a massive massive effect on who is or isn't good at a sport. I'm not arguing against that. My example sport, tennis, is probably less competitive than other sports because there are economic barriers to entry and because it isn't as prestigious or popular as many other sports in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Dancer posted:That's honestly too strong of a statement to make, given the amount and quality of data we have. The current state of "male superiority" perpetuates it in several ways - for example by making the population of future professional sportspeople more limited. If all the current (random example) top cyclists are male, then there will be more men pursuing a potential career in cycling. Assuming a normal distribution, given the fact that we're looking at the very extreme ends of the distribution, an X times larger population makes it significantly more than X times more likely that the top people will be from the larger population. And even if we do get to a point where the populations of professional cyclists are about the same, the fact that women throughout their career only compete against other women, the fact that it's "easier" to get to the top of only the women's half of the equation may very well mean that those women are less incentivized to put in extreme efforts or strategies (like doping) to get those very best performances. Unless you find an environment where there's no stigma, no previous population, no tradition, and male and female players train and compete in an entirely mixed environment, you legitimately can't claim that it's based on intrinsic gender differences. Chess, shooting, curling etc. are not exactly athletic sports. I don't think anybody has disputed equality in loving chess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Chess, shooting, curling etc. are not exactly athletic sports. Having to hold a shotgun and shoot a bunch of rounds is an endurance marathon, so yeah. Is archery also not athletic to you now? Zhang Shan won the gold in 1996 for mixed skeet and had to shoot just as many rounds as a man. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Having to hold a shotgun and shoot a bunch of rounds is an endurance marathon, so yeah. Is archery also not athletic to you now? Archery is much more difficult than shooting a gun. Not to mention a contact sport like hockey. But keep loving that dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Archery is much more difficult than shooting a gun. It's ok to admit you don't know very much about shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Archery is much more difficult than shooting a gun. You go ahead and run two hundred targets straight, singles from high and low house, and pairs from 8 different positions and then hit 23/25 targets in the final. Oh wait, you're talking completely out of your rear end. Go ahead and keep marginalizing women's accomplishments because it makes your penis feel uncomfortable tho~
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:33
|
|