|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2015 22:33 KwarK wrote:
I don't think you know what rape culture is if you think it's just the idea that men are stronger than women. It's more about entrenched marginalization of victims. Hell, take male on male prison rape, a topic which in no way involves women but absolutely involves rape culture. It's socially acceptable to treat prison rape as part of our justice system, wishing that particularly despicable criminals are made unusually vulnerable to it, cracking jokes about it and generally assuming that anyone it happens to probably deserves it.
Incidentally, regarding your position that some jobs need men to do them because of biological differences I would argue that pretty much any woman equipped with modern tools (chainsaw for logging, machine gun for being a soldier, whatever) is probably more effective than a man working the same job 500 years ago. We don't reserve the cooler parts of the world purely for the more naturally hairy of our species, we don't need to, technology rendered that issue irrelevant, we have clothes. There were jobs in the past where the primary qualification was physical strength but in an increasingly advanced society strength is becoming less and less important while the cultural assumptions of gender roles remain left behind.
So bloody what? I'm sure a well-trained chimp with the right tools would be more effective at those jobs than a human 500 years ago. That doesn't mean we should send well-trained chimps out to do the logging for us (although I do admit, that would be kind of awesome).
Now I'm not saying women shouldn't be loggers, soldiers or fishers. But if they do want to do those jobs, the physical requirements shouldn't be dropped. If a soldier is required to be able to run the obstacle course in 15 minutes to be considered "apt", then that has nothing to do with gender, yet more men will naturally pass the bar than women.
However, for most intents and purposes, the military sets the bar sufficiently low that it is inclusive, rather than exclusive (except for the elite forces, which are pretty much the only group you could say Wegandi's original post still holds true). I expect the same happens in the logging, fishing and other physically intense industries, and suspect women are capable of doing these jobs up to CURRENT DAY standards, but not being an expert in these industries I have to admit ignorance.
That's not to say that I don't believe there are jobs that men are, on average, better at than women, and vice versa.
However, this whole discussion is entirely a tangent. We were talking about BLM and that led to an argument about PC, which led to gender relations. The main point that people were trying to make wasn't about males vs. females in jobs, but was specifcially about the STEM field, in which I don't believe any of this applies. I would love to see conclusive neurological and psychological evidence (and not the pseudo-sicentific evolutionary psychology mumbo jumbo that presumes that because men were out hunting their brains are better configured for geometry and math) that men, on average, are better at logical thinking than women: that would be some hard evidence supporting why there should be more men than women in most STEM fields (but not all, because most work in STEM fields has nothing to do with logical thinking).
In contrast to what Wegandi seems to think, though, I am fairly convinced that it is down to nerd-culture (a male chauvinist culture) dominating the STEM fields, and that is quite unappetizing to women. Can we change that? Sure, but it is going to take a long time for the culture to shift. In actual fact, I expect the shift is already under way: the millenial's nerd culture already includes more girls than generation X or Y's. Although it it is still male-dominated, it seems more inclusive and far more mainstream than when I was an adolescent.
|
On August 10 2015 14:06 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 12:45 Acrofales wrote:
Us hardcore CSers called it CS for girls, because instead of focusing on the engineering side, it had more design, psychology and business subjects: looking back at it from a business point of view, it was probably a helluvalot better at preparing students for industry than CS was I think I found the problem. Perpetuated juvenile ideas of gender.
Well... duh. I think that was part of the main point I have been making.
|
Eh, Ronda would do okay against a guy her own size. Still, her technique is kinda rough so I'd expect a champ-level fighter (of the same size) to pretty much destroy her. Women's MMA is just getting off the ground so you have someone with decent technique from a martial arts background and in really good physical condition styling a bunch of newbs.
There's also significant differences in men and women's brains that make them better at one thing or another. Obviously there's significant variation within each group though.
|
On August 10 2015 23:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
Eh, Ronda would do okay against a guy her own size. Still, her technique is kinda rough so I'd expect a champ-level fighter (of the same size) to pretty much destroy her. Women's MMA is just getting off the ground so you have someone with decent technique from a martial arts background and in really good physical condition styling a bunch of newbs.
There's also significant differences in men and women's brains that make them better at one thing or another. Obviously there's significant variation within each group though.
Yeah, I agree, a GUY HER OWN SIZE. That would make him a bantam or a featherweight. If you consider Ronda an average female fighter, then she would have to go up against an average male fighter to make your point stand, and win. I am afraid that even with great technique, a good middleweight or even welterweight male fighter has too much reach, power and mass for her to do anything more than tickle him.
|
United States43271 Posts
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101.
|
On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101.
Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10.
|
On August 10 2015 23:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 22:33 KwarK wrote:
I don't think you know what rape culture is if you think it's just the idea that men are stronger than women. It's more about entrenched marginalization of victims. Hell, take male on male prison rape, a topic which in no way involves women but absolutely involves rape culture. It's socially acceptable to treat prison rape as part of our justice system, wishing that particularly despicable criminals are made unusually vulnerable to it, cracking jokes about it and generally assuming that anyone it happens to probably deserves it.
Incidentally, regarding your position that some jobs need men to do them because of biological differences I would argue that pretty much any woman equipped with modern tools (chainsaw for logging, machine gun for being a soldier, whatever) is probably more effective than a man working the same job 500 years ago. We don't reserve the cooler parts of the world purely for the more naturally hairy of our species, we don't need to, technology rendered that issue irrelevant, we have clothes. There were jobs in the past where the primary qualification was physical strength but in an increasingly advanced society strength is becoming less and less important while the cultural assumptions of gender roles remain left behind. So bloody what? I'm sure a well-trained chimp with the right tools would be more effective at those jobs than a human 500 years ago. That doesn't mean we should send well-trained chimps out to do the logging for us (although I do admit, that would be kind of awesome). Now I'm not saying women shouldn't be loggers, soldiers or fishers. But if they do want to do those jobs, the physical requirements shouldn't be dropped. If a soldier is required to be able to run the obstacle course in 15 minutes to be considered "apt", then that has nothing to do with gender, yet more men will naturally pass the bar than women. However, for most intents and purposes, the military sets the bar sufficiently low that it is inclusive, rather than exclusive (except for the elite forces, which are pretty much the only group you could say Wegandi's original post still holds true). I expect the same happens in the logging, fishing and other physically intense industries, and suspect women are capable of doing these jobs up to CURRENT DAY standards, but not being an expert in these industries I have to admit ignorance. That's not to say that I don't believe there are jobs that men are, on average, better at than women, and vice versa. However, this whole discussion is entirely a tangent. We were talking about BLM and that led to an argument about PC, which led to gender relations. The main point that people were trying to make wasn't about males vs. females in jobs, but was specifcially about the STEM field, in which I don't believe any of this applies. I would love to see conclusive neurological and psychological evidence (and not the pseudo-sicentific evolutionary psychology mumbo jumbo that presumes that because men were out hunting their brains are better configured for geometry and math) that men, on average, are better at logical thinking than women: that would be some hard evidence supporting why there should be more men than women in most STEM fields (but not all, because most work in STEM fields has nothing to do with logical thinking). In contrast to what Wegandi seems to think, though, I am fairly convinced that it is down to nerd-culture (a male chauvinist culture) dominating the STEM fields, and that is quite unappetizing to women. Can we change that? Sure, but it is going to take a long time for the culture to shift. In actual fact, I expect the shift is already under way: the millenial's nerd culture already includes more girls than generation X or Y's. Although it it is still male-dominated, it seems more inclusive and far more mainstream than when I was an adolescent.
Changing the culture of tech and stem industries is a huge undertaking and it’s a slow process for sure. I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. The main problem that a lot of people come across is the denial that the problem exists and the junk science attempting to justify why the industry is filled with White and Asian men.
Intel is taking pushing for more college graduates and larger recruitment bonuses for women and minorities. This is because they found that they did not receive enough resumes from women and minorities and their hiring numbers matched the percentage of resumes received. Other companies are pushing for more minorities in their intern pools, which they found naturally leads to more hires from those groups.
The irritating part about the discussion is rather than talking about how to address the issues like I did above, people just lead with 50/50 quota argument that no one is making. Really, the only people who talk about quotas are people who seem to be against any effort to increase diversity in a specific field.
|
On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101.
Kwark, I am with you and it should just happen so we can stop arguing about it. However, I have a couple lady friends who box and they have a really hard time against the men. This is mainly due to height and simple arm length, which is a huge advantage. Not to say that an MMA fighter couldn’t train around that and likely will. But there are some sports where being tall is a huge advantage. But MMA is a different animal.
|
Yeah, don't get me wrong. I think this is completely independent of gender. A bantamweight man is going to get his ass kicked by a welter/middleweight 9 times out of 10 as well. Or put in more famous terms: Wladimir Klitschko will absolutely wipe the floor with Floyd Mayweather.
|
United States43271 Posts
On August 10 2015 23:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Kwark, I am with you and it should just happen so we can stop arguing about it. However, I have a couple lady friends who box and they have a really hard time against the men. This is mainly due to height and simple arm length, which is a huge advantage. Not to say that an MMA fighter couldn’t train around that and likely will. But there are some sports where being tall is a huge advantage. But MMA is a different animal.
I'm not mandating that they'll win. I don't give a shit whether they win or lose, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't ban them from doing it given the choice. If she wanted to go into a fight with a handicap and the opponents was fine with it then what business of it is mine.
I also think female sprinters should be allowed to race against male sprinters if they like. Unless I'm missing something that wouldn't be in the least bit controversial.
|
On August 10 2015 23:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
There's also significant differences in men and women's brains that make them better at one thing or another. Obviously there's significant variation within each group though.
This must be the 7th or 8th time I address this kind of statement here. The idea that there are "significant differences in men and women's brains that make them better at one thing or another" is largely a myth. There are very minor initial biological differences, which are insignificant for the kind of preferences or differences in aptitudes that we're talking about here, due to how flexible our brains are in terms of development, adapting to how they are used. In other words, the kind of differences you're referring to are based on culture/nurture, not inherent biological differences. I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010) and Janet Shibley Hyde's Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2012) if you're interested in the topic. Both books offer a comprehensive look at the literature on the topic of gender differences/similarities with regards to cognition.
|
Ahm, what? We only got weight classes in MMA because, fuck it, why not?
Its not like weight is associated with height and therefore baseline power/reach at all.
Training around height/reach/power disadvantage = outskilling your opponent like crazy (if the diffrence is significant).
|
United States43271 Posts
On August 10 2015 23:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10.
Don't all of these matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked? Isn't that more or less the point?
It comes down to consent. If she consents to it then it's no business of mine.
|
On August 10 2015 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:18 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10. Don't all of these matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked? Isn't that more or less the point? It comes down to consent. If she consents to it then it's no business of mine.
Consent to fight isn't the issue. Its that it would have to be a full pay preview match and that comes with its own set of issues, which are mostly cultural.
|
On August 10 2015 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:18 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10. Don't all of these matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked? Isn't that more or less the point? It comes down to consent. If she consents to it then it's no business of mine.
Regarding your first point: no, not all matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked. Most interesting matches end with the fighters going toe to toe for most of the fight. A spectacular K.O. is fun every now and then, but a round 1 K.O. simply means that the fighters were terribly matched, either in physique or in skill, or both.
As for your second point: they can consent all they like, but I still won't bother watching it on TV, and THAT is the main issue here.
For the same reason, there are weightclasses in fighting sports: nobody is at all interested in seeing Chris Weldman wipe the floor with T. J. Dillashaw (or Ronda Rousey) simply because he is bigger and stronger.
Now if you're trying to put Ronda and T.J. Dillashaw in the ring together, I think Dillashaw will win handily, but at least the fight is starting to look a bit fairer. But seeing as Ronda won't even fight Fallon Fox, I don't think that fight is going to happen any time soon.
Anyway, in fighting, there's a reason that the challengers and who-fights-who are very carefully selected. Obviously part of it is that getting a few blows to your head is no fun, so there has to be some glory in it for the winner, but another part is that sponsors and public want the events to be hyped, and when everybody expects a one-sided stomp, there is no hype.
And additionally, I doubt Dillashaw would be all that willing to fight Ronda, because it is a lose-lose situation for him. The cases:
1. He wins without breaking a sweat. Everybody speaks of how it was so disgraceful of him to fight her in the first place.
2. Ronda contests him, but he still wins. Probably the best situation for him, but it just "confirms" the expectations: he beat someone who everybody expected him to beat. He takes some money away from it.
3. Ronda wins. He is utterly disgraced.
Why would Dillashaw take this fight? Only if Ronda is paying a very very very hefty bounty to compete should he even consider it, as there is no upside. There is no honor in winning, and utter disgrace in losing.
And yes, you could argue that gender relations is exactly why that latter situation is the case, and we should not feel that way. However, for the entire history of humankind, that is exactly how people have felt about gender relations: men hitting women is not fair, and getting beat up by a girl is disgraceful.
|
I'm confused here - are we talking about an actual ban between Ronda and male fighters, an actual ban between fighters between weight classes, or just a general "no fight event will support this because it's not going to end well" kind of thing?
|
On August 11 2015 00:13 JinDesu wrote:
I'm confused here - are we talking about an actual ban between Ronda and male fighters, an actual ban between fighters between weight classes, or just a general "no fight event will support this because it's not going to end well" kind of thing?
Its pointing out the issues with a professional fighter accepting any fighter where there is a clear disadvantage for one party. In the abstract there is no problem with doing it. But in the professional field where the fights are pay-per view, there are numerous issues. It doesn’t have to deal with her or gender specifically.
|
On August 10 2015 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:23 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Kwark, I am with you and it should just happen so we can stop arguing about it. However, I have a couple lady friends who box and they have a really hard time against the men. This is mainly due to height and simple arm length, which is a huge advantage. Not to say that an MMA fighter couldn’t train around that and likely will. But there are some sports where being tall is a huge advantage. But MMA is a different animal. I'm not mandating that they'll win. I don't give a shit whether they win or lose, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't ban them from doing it given the choice. If she wanted to go into a fight with a handicap and the opponents was fine with it then what business of it is mine. I also think female sprinters should be allowed to race against male sprinters if they like. Unless I'm missing something that wouldn't be in the least bit controversial.
I don't have any principal objection to any of it, but it would be extremely stupid: looking at the 100m dash, the women's gold medalist at the London olympics would not have gotten through Round 1 of the men's 100m dash.
EDIT: I checked, same story for the 200m.
|
United States43271 Posts
On August 11 2015 00:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 23:41 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2015 23:18 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10. Don't all of these matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked? Isn't that more or less the point? It comes down to consent. If she consents to it then it's no business of mine. Regarding your first point: no, not all matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked. Most interesting matches end with the fighters going toe to toe for most of the fight. A spectacular K.O. is fun every now and then, but a round 1 K.O. simply means that the fighters were terribly matched, either in physique or in skill, or both. As for your second point: they can consent all they like, but I still won't bother watching it on TV, and THAT is the main issue here. For the same reason, there are weightclasses in fighting sports: nobody is at all interested in seeing Chris Weldman wipe the floor with T. J. Dillashaw (or Ronda Rousey) simply because he is bigger and stronger. Now if you're trying to put Ronda and T.J. Dillashaw in the ring together, I think Dillashaw will win handily, but at least the fight is starting to look a bit fairer. But seeing as Ronda won't even fight Fallon Fox, I don't think that fight is going to happen any time soon. Anyway, in fighting, there's a reason that the challengers and who-fights-who are very carefully selected. Obviously part of it is that getting a few blows to your head is no fun, so there has to be some glory in it for the winner, but another part is that sponsors and public want the events to be hyped, and when everybody expects a one-sided stomp, there is no hype. And additionally, I doubt Dillashaw would be all that willing to fight Ronda, because it is a lose-lose situation for him. The cases: 1. He wins without breaking a sweat. Everybody speaks of how it was so disgraceful of him to fight her in the first place. 2. Ronda contests him, but he still wins. Probably the best situation for him, but it just "confirms" the expectations: he beat someone who everybody expected him to beat. He takes some money away from it. 3. Ronda wins. He is utterly disgraced. Why would Dillashaw take this fight? Only if Ronda is paying a very very very hefty bounty to compete should he even consider it, as there is no upside. There is no honor in winning, and utter disgrace in losing. And yes, you could argue that gender relations is exactly why that latter situation is the case, and we should not feel that way. However, for the entire history of humankind, that is exactly how people have felt about gender relations: men hitting women is not fair, and getting beat up by a girl is disgraceful.
At no point was I suggesting that male fighters are forced to fight Ronda Rousey or that other organizations are forced to host it and broadcast it to an audience of people bolted into chairs with their eyelids stapled open.
All I said was that if two professional fighters want to fight each other then it shouldn't illegal. What you're arguing against is the first one. What I was saying was the second one.
|
On August 11 2015 00:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 00:02 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2015 23:41 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2015 23:18 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote:
If a woman wants to fight a man and they're both consenting to it then I don't think I would have any right to ban her from doing it. Not telling women what they can and cannot do because of their gender is basically feminism 101. Absolutely, go ahead. But don't cry afterwards if she gets her ass kicked, which is exactly what will happen 9 times out of 10. Don't all of these matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked? Isn't that more or less the point? It comes down to consent. If she consents to it then it's no business of mine. Regarding your first point: no, not all matches end with one of the participants getting their ass kicked. Most interesting matches end with the fighters going toe to toe for most of the fight. A spectacular K.O. is fun every now and then, but a round 1 K.O. simply means that the fighters were terribly matched, either in physique or in skill, or both. As for your second point: they can consent all they like, but I still won't bother watching it on TV, and THAT is the main issue here. For the same reason, there are weightclasses in fighting sports: nobody is at all interested in seeing Chris Weldman wipe the floor with T. J. Dillashaw (or Ronda Rousey) simply because he is bigger and stronger. Now if you're trying to put Ronda and T.J. Dillashaw in the ring together, I think Dillashaw will win handily, but at least the fight is starting to look a bit fairer. But seeing as Ronda won't even fight Fallon Fox, I don't think that fight is going to happen any time soon. Anyway, in fighting, there's a reason that the challengers and who-fights-who are very carefully selected. Obviously part of it is that getting a few blows to your head is no fun, so there has to be some glory in it for the winner, but another part is that sponsors and public want the events to be hyped, and when everybody expects a one-sided stomp, there is no hype. And additionally, I doubt Dillashaw would be all that willing to fight Ronda, because it is a lose-lose situation for him. The cases: 1. He wins without breaking a sweat. Everybody speaks of how it was so disgraceful of him to fight her in the first place. 2. Ronda contests him, but he still wins. Probably the best situation for him, but it just "confirms" the expectations: he beat someone who everybody expected him to beat. He takes some money away from it. 3. Ronda wins. He is utterly disgraced. Why would Dillashaw take this fight? Only if Ronda is paying a very very very hefty bounty to compete should he even consider it, as there is no upside. There is no honor in winning, and utter disgrace in losing. And yes, you could argue that gender relations is exactly why that latter situation is the case, and we should not feel that way. However, for the entire history of humankind, that is exactly how people have felt about gender relations: men hitting women is not fair, and getting beat up by a girl is disgraceful. At no point was I suggesting that male fighters are forced to fight Ronda Rousey or that other organizations are forced to host it and broadcast it to an audience of people bolted into chairs with their eyelids stapled open. All I said was that if two professional fighters want to fight each other then it shouldn't illegal. What you're arguing against is the first one. What I was saying was the second one.
What makes you think it is illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
