|
botany posted:the differences between members of the same sex in humans are far, far larger than the proposed impact of biology between the sexes. that's why biotruths are so ridiculous when used as an explanation -- humans are dimorphic, true, but their individual differences withing the same sex are so much more pronounced than what biology accounts for. (outside of fringe cases where you're pretty much looking at top athletes etc.) If you aren't going to accept various biotruths like that women are less comfortable with being aggressive or being in situations involving pressure (as observed by the researcher in this podcast http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/) You're going to fail to solve the things you care about.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Sethex posted:If you aren't going to accept various biotruths like that women are less comfortable with being aggressive or being in situations involving pressure (as observed by the researcher in this podcast http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I didn't know/pay attention to your gender, sorry. Like, the second you learn some person's a woman, you call her irrational and presume she'll throw tantrums if presented with rational dissent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Dancer posted:I can believe that the average modern adult Western woman is indeed less aggressive in situations involving pressure than the average modern adult Western male. I will admit that I haven't listened to that specific podcast you dumped instead of summarizing but, from experience with biotruths people I'm going to assume that that's what the researcher is describing and not something intrinsic to biological sex. We all know men have much more testosterone, and we all assume testosterone makes you more aggressive. So it's natural to assume that it's natural men are more aggressive, right? Well, if you actually look it up, the evidence for the direct influence of changes in testosterone levels on human behavior wrt. causing anger is surprisingly shaky. It's not that there's nothing, but there's actually also bunch of null findings and a bunch of contrastereotypical findings. So even the most straight-forward biological cause behind male aggression you could think of is rather shaky. Look it up if you don't believe me, but that's my superficial reading of the literature. For a little anecdote, my wife is much more aggressive than I am.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Perhaps aggression is a learned thing rather than an immutable fact of biology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:You can break down the performance levels of any sort of highly populated and competitive sport and there is clearly a gap in performance by gender. This occurs even with entire training regimens and support groups created specifically for the purpose of encouraging female success in sport. If you are an elite athlete training for the olympics, whether you are male or female has little bearing on the quality of the training you will receive and there will still be an observable deviation in achievement by gender. Shooting is already a counterexample to this you dumb gently caress. You're saying 'any' and I've already, in this very loving thread, brought up a counterexample. Please explain why women are better at shooting than men if the best sportspeople in all disciplines are men?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wanna mention something that really surprised me when I first came across it. I mean, I dunno if you're arguing against me, but that's kinda the point I've been. Yes sexual dimorphism is a thing, but it's wrong to assume that it translates easily from biochemistry ("more T") to a part of the complex human condition ("more aggressive") without convincing evidence. That's not "denying sexual dimorphism", because there's nothing that indicates the correlation is going in a certain direction at a certain magnitude, other than "common sense" (i. e. Anecdotes and confirmation bias). Like you seem to be arguing, I'm simply arguing that we *can't know*, and it's wrong to act like we do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Shooting is already a counterexample to this you dumb gently caress. One counterexample in a sea of data points conflicting your stance. A woman won in an extremely unpopular event one time that required an extremely low amount of athleticism to begin with. Never mind it's a sport she could have probably competed in from a wheelchair. Surely this tiny footnote proves your point rather than decades of recorded data on physical achievement in dozens of events that require an amount of athleticism slightly more difficult than standing around and pointing at things while pulling a trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:One counterexample in a sea of data points conflicting your stance. A woman won in an extremely unpopular event one time that required an extremely low amount of athleticism to begin with. Never mind it's a sport she could have probably competed in from a wheelchair. Surely this tiny footnote proves your point rather than decades of recorded data on physical achievement in dozens of events that require an amount of athleticism slightly more difficult than standing around and pointing at things while pulling a trigger. You have no loving idea what competitive shooting is like, if this is what you think. Weak troll, 3/10, would not bother with again. E: The best part is you're not going to look it up or try to learn anything, you're just going to continue to believe that you know everything about the subject. Somfin fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You have no loving idea what competitive shooting is like, if this is what you think. All I'm saying is that example reeks of the type of intentional ignorance typified in similar arguments like "How can global warming be real when it's so cold here right now?" We're talking about the aggregation of shitloads of data collected over decades. Finding a single outlier in an ocean of contradictory information doesn't make your point for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
How is shooting not less physically demanding than football, or tennis, or rugby...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:How is shooting not less physically demanding than football, or tennis, or rugby... The world darts champion is a lady, better start drafting 50% female linebackers for the Dallas Cowboys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:All I'm saying is that example reeks of the type of intentional ignorance typified in similar arguments like "How can global warming be real when it's so cold here right now?" We're talking about the aggregation of shitloads of data collected over decades. Finding a single outlier in an ocean of contradictory information doesn't make your point for you. No, but it should make you question whether or not you actually believe that all sports are dominated by men is a dogma you can hold. Rather than the more likely most things I consider sports are designed so that a particular kind of man can dominate them. Right now there's a New Zealand golfer named Lydia Ko who is golfing as well as Tiger Woods was back in his glory days. That makes three loving data points. (Remember when Golf was considered a white man's sport? Something that black people couldn't ever participate in?) By the way, you're bringing up quotas again, another thing that has already been responded to. You don't loving read!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:How is shooting not less physically demanding than football, or tennis, or rugby... Is this a serious post? I can help explain if you seriously don't understand this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Somfin posted:No, but it should make you question whether or not you actually believe that all sports are dominated by men is a dogma you can hold. Rather than the more likely most things I consider sports are designed so that a particular kind of man can dominate them. Right now there's a New Zealand golfer named Lydia Ko who is golfing as well as Tiger Woods was back in his glory days. That makes three loving data points. (Remember when Golf was considered a white man's sport? Something that black people couldn't ever participate in?) Is it really that impressive when you realize that the average LPGA course is about 1000 yards shorter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Is it really that impressive when you realize that the average LPGA course is about 1000 yards shorter? You'll find any excuse to demean women lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You'll find any excuse to demean women lmao Facts are demeaning!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
I don't get what people are using the "there is a small number of sports where women are competitive with men" fact for. What's it mean?OwlFancier posted:Perhaps aggression is a learned thing rather than an immutable fact of biology. Dancer posted:I mean, I dunno if you're arguing against me, but that's kinda the point I've been. Yes sexual dimorphism is a thing, but it's wrong to assume that it translates easily from biochemistry ("more T") to a part of the complex human condition ("more aggressive") without convincing evidence. That's not "denying sexual dimorphism", because there's nothing that indicates the correlation is going in a certain direction at a certain magnitude, other than "common sense" (i. e. Anecdotes and confirmation bias). Like you seem to be arguing, I'm simply arguing that we *can't know*, and it's wrong to act like we do. I think "can't know" is too strong, I'd stick with "don't know".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Is it really that impressive when you realize that the average LPGA course is about 1000 yards shorter? I'll just let you respond to yourself here. new phone who dis posted:Surely this tiny footnote proves your point And I'll invite you to read the bit I already wrote about men's and women's sports being deliberately designed to be incomparable. Read something. Please. Anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Is this a serious post? I can help explain if you seriously don't understand this. I think you don't understand sports if you sincerely believe that. Maintaining peak exertion of all major muscle groups, often over periods of tens of minutes at a time, vs. arguably masterful, but still primarily senso-motoric control-based contest. Now, winter biathlon for instance is a different story, but even there shooting is a secondary element. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'll just let you respond to yourself here. Yes, more conspiracy-theory level assumption that assumes malice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think you don't understand sports if you sincerely believe that. Maintaining peak exertion of all major muscle groups, often over periods of tens of minutes at a time, vs. arguably masterful, but still primarily senso-motoric control-based contest. Now, winter biathlon for instance is a different story, but even there shooting is a secondary element. Sorry, misread your post. Missed the double negative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Yes, more conspiracy-theory level assumption that assumes malice. There is literally a case of segregating a sport when women started to win in the case of shooting. Women are still to this day better shooters than men. How obvious does it need to get for you to see it? E: Or are men just such angels that they would never do anything to hurt women as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Somfin posted:There is literally a case of segregating a sport when women started to win in the case of shooting. Women are still to this day better shooters than men. How obvious does it need to get for you to see it? When I think of athletes, I think of people who shoot guns good. Maybe not quite the level of competitive eating, but close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:When I think of athletes, I think of people who shoot guns good. Maybe not quite the level of competitive eating, but close. You are, at this point, arguing in horrendously bad faith and moving the goalposts like mad. And you still don't loving read. You should take a look at what competitive shooting entails and check to see if you could manage that. Feel free to check the women's version, there's fewer rounds involved because the male organisers of the sport couldn't bear the thought of ceding the trophy to someone who doesn't use male pronouns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You are, at this point, arguing in horrendously bad faith and moving the goalposts like mad. And you still don't loving read. There's that pesky devil patriarchy showing up again. A true child of prudence's work is never done!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Er, the point of the shooting example is that after a woman won they separated the events by gender and made it so woman were only shooting 75 targets vs men's 125 targets, making further comparisons near impossible. If men were actually interested in how sexual dimorphism affects competitive shooting the Olympic committee would have kept it a level playing field. As someone who's done weightlifting; testosterone is a hell of a drug and makes a huge impact on strength. Also men's strength is more explosive (but women have a slower fatigue rate. [A href=http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Weightlifting/Women.html]More info here.[/a]) There's a lot of sports where this makes a huge difference but there's a lot where it doesn't (shooting, dressage, other equestrian sports). I don't think there should be a huge issue with acknowledging the differences hormones/sexual dimorphism makes (and most of these differences don't really matter on a normal-person, day to day basis), but there are other factors at play in certain sports where there's not a level-enough playing field to collect actual data. When I google searched about female jockeys the main thing I saw was it's not a sport that's very welcoming to women. And sure, strength and stamina are required, but if being the strongest small person is the only factor to winning than we'd put the worlds tiniest power lifters on horses and call it a day. There's other factors that contribute and actively discouraging or gatekeeping women from participating prevents us from getting a better idea of what those are. From some British paper: quote:‘I have banged on for years about the lack of opportunities for women jockeys in Britain. Some horses go even better for a girl and the good women jockeys like Hayley [Turner] … are as good as the boys. The problem is that few get the chance to become that good because they are denied enough rides by owners and trainers. You have to go 67 places down the championship list to find Hayley as the leading woman rider. Dressage was the other one I brought up. A crippled woman (Lis Hartel) won silver competing against military calvary. There's certain sports where the strength difference is less of an issue than woman being actively dissuaded from training/competing/etc. Or in the case of shooting, the rules are changed we can't make a real comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:There's that pesky devil patriarchy showing up again. A true child of prudence's work is never done! So what's your explanation for the sudden division between male and female shooting?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So what's your explanation for the sudden division between male and female shooting? Typically divisions in sports among gender lines are to create more opportunities for women, not less. The implicit acknowledgement that the odd and extremely rare woman who can compete with men at most sports is not a good or compelling enough reason to mix them is a good one for women overall. It creates an entirely different set of much more numerous opportunities that employ or venerate a diverse cast of female athletes. Ultimately, that's better for everyone involved except one group of people - modern feminists. Maybe this shooting situation IS a direct result of sexism or bigotry. But it's still a huge outlier among sports in general, and not indicative of why there is a division to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Typically divisions in sports among gender lines are to create more opportunities for women, not less. The implicit acknowledgement that the odd and extremely rare woman who can compete with men at most sports is not a good or compelling enough reason to mix them is a good one for women overall. It creates an entirely different set of much more numerous opportunities that employ or venerate a diverse cast of female athletes. Ultimately, that's better for everyone involved except one group of people - modern feminists. Maybe this shooting situation IS a direct result of sexism or bigotry. But it's still a huge outlier among sports in general, and not indicative of why there is a division to begin with. But in shooting they waited until a woman was winning. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I didn't know/pay attention to your gender, sorry. lmbo I moved the thread with the blessing of koalas march, after you and lejackal thought on the day of the women's march would be a good day to post unspoiled graphic sexual assault details but please, keep melting down have you come up with a better hypothesis and reoperationalized your variables or are you still pretending that men are very rarely domestically abused ignoring victims who are men is by the way a huge part of the problem, and really reinforces a dumb binary dichotomy
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Sethex posted:If you aren't going to accept various biotruths like that women are less comfortable with being aggressive or being in situations involving pressure (as observed by the researcher in this podcast http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/) "Babies come out of the womb like that, they're not socialized that way or anything!  "- a pissbaby
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Somfin posted:But in shooting they waited until a woman was winning. Why is that? new phone who dis posted:Typically divisions in sports among gender lines are to create more opportunities for women, not less. The implicit acknowledgement that the odd and extremely rare woman who can compete with men at most sports is not a good or compelling enough reason to mix them is a good one for women overall. It creates an entirely different set of much more numerous opportunities that employ or venerate a diverse cast of female athletes. Ultimately, that's better for everyone involved except one group of people - modern feminists. Maybe this shooting situation IS a direct result of sexism or bigotry. But it's still a huge outlier among sports in general, and not indicative of why there is a division to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I really don't get what you two are arguing about. What does women's performance at the Olympics, and related IOC decisions, mean for either of you here? npwd seems to believe that there is no such thing as men deliberately making decisions that negatively impact women; shooting is an excellent counterexample. I need him to realise that this poo poo does actually happen, at all, if we're going to make any ground regarding anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Somfin posted:npwd seems to believe that there is no such thing as men deliberately making decisions that negatively impact women; shooting is an excellent counterexample. I need him to realise that this poo poo does actually happen, at all, if we're going to make any ground regarding anything. The claim put forth is that her win that year resulted in a huge spike in popularity among women for an otherwise rather stagnant event and to capitalize on that fact, they then split the competition to allow for more entrants. Whether that's bullshit or not, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The claim put forth is that her win that year resulted in a huge spike in popularity among women for an otherwise rather stagnant event and to capitalize on that fact, they then split the competition to allow for more entrants. Whether that's bullshit or not, who knows? Is that what you believe? If you were going to explain it, is that what you would say? E: Put forth where?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The claim put forth is that her win that year resulted in a huge spike in popularity among women for an otherwise rather stagnant event and to capitalize on that fact, they then split the competition to allow for more entrants. Whether that's bullshit or not, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But in principle, you probably do believe that sometimes, men make decisions that negatively impact women? Sure, absolutely. I just think the dogma of the particular type of modern feminism many adhere to in this thread jumps to that assumption immediately way, way too often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Sure, absolutely. I just think the dogma of the particular type of modern feminism many adhere to in this thread jumps to that assumption immediately way, way too often. Can you actually define modern feminism besides your madness over gamergate? e:messed up a word
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Sure, absolutely. I just think the dogma of the particular type of modern feminism many adhere to in this thread jumps to that assumption immediately way, way too often. We can agree on that. In the case of shooting, I believe that the women's version was deliberately created to keep women out of the 'real' version pf the sport, and the rules were changed so that the scores couldn't be directly compared. Do you agree with this assessment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 01:04
|
|