|
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 11 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:30 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:23 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:21 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, there were a string of women at the foundation of coding. I guess it depends on what your definition of "coding became cool" is to suggest when men started becoming the main contributors. I'm inclined to go at least partially with Plansix' explanation, or rather the one he linked. Home computers generally were marketed to boys (as well as gaming consoles and other things that lead to "tech" in a broad sense). I grew up on the 1980, all things digital were marketed to boys in that era. Those shitty hand held football games that were just lights, there was no version marketed to for girls. It's not just that. Things like C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 etc (1mb memory extension!!!1) were aimed at boys through games mostly, and that's where i took my interest as well. "Hacking" around in Workbench kinda was the start for me. My sister on the other hand had zero interest in my computers/consoles. I'd argue it's a similar cause as to why men are considerably more inclined to work on cars (garages etc). At my age, there was no boy who didn't have a poster of a Countach, F40 or something on the wall. I can't say that i've ever seen a girl around age 10 being excited by a screaming V10. I know i was, spent spare time with dad wrenching because i took an interest in cars so early. My family business used to do packaging for Parker Brothers back in the day. We put their card games in boxes and it was pretty dope. We still have friends who work for toy companies, though we don’t do any of their packaging. Back in 2014 or so, when people were complaining about being unable to find a Black Widow figure for their girls(there were none). And then it happened again around the new Star Wars. So I asked our family friend why that was and what the hell was going on. Because it seemed like leaving money on the table. He told me that toy marking is one of the most entrenched and boring industries. And because of that, they are still deeply sexist. The concept of not having a boys and girls toy section is impossible for them, they cannot understand it. And the stores that sell the toys can’t fathom not having a big pink toy section for girls and one filled with angry action figures for boys. So when DC wanted to make girl’s super hero action figures(and the action figure is just dolls for boys) , they didn’t make it pink. And stores didn’t know where to put them, because they weren’t pink and boys don’t buy girl action figures. It is so stupid. We want to combat gender sterotypes and think we are making progress. But then you go to the toy section in Target and know we are still so fucked.
Actually, here's a fun anecdote.
Back when i was younger (even quite far into the teenager years), if i entered a store with mixed toys, i wouldn't "window shop". Only if boy/girl toys were separated.
It's not as simple as to just blame them, i do think that there's something "inherently" different in what drives boys/girls.
|
On August 11 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:30 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:23 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:21 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, there were a string of women at the foundation of coding. I guess it depends on what your definition of "coding became cool" is to suggest when men started becoming the main contributors. I'm inclined to go at least partially with Plansix' explanation, or rather the one he linked. Home computers generally were marketed to boys (as well as gaming consoles and other things that lead to "tech" in a broad sense). I grew up on the 1980, all things digital were marketed to boys in that era. Those shitty hand held football games that were just lights, there was no version marketed to for girls. It's not just that. Things like C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 etc (1mb memory extension!!!1) were aimed at boys through games mostly, and that's where i took my interest as well. "Hacking" around in Workbench kinda was the start for me. My sister on the other hand had zero interest in my computers/consoles. I'd argue it's a similar cause as to why men are considerably more inclined to work on cars (garages etc). At my age, there was no boy who didn't have a poster of a Countach, F40 or something on the wall. I can't say that i've ever seen a girl around age 10 being excited by a screaming V10. I know i was, spent spare time with dad wrenching because i took an interest in cars so early. My family business used to do packaging for Parker Brothers back in the day. We put their card games in boxes and it was pretty dope. We still have friends who work for toy companies, though we don’t do any of their packaging. Back in 2014 or so, when people were complaining about being unable to find a Black Widow figure for their girls(there were none). And then it happened again around the new Star Wars. So I asked our family friend why that was and what the hell was going on. Because it seemed like leaving money on the table. He told me that toy marking is one of the most entrenched and boring industries. And because of that, they are still deeply sexist. The concept of not having a boys and girls toy section is impossible for them, they cannot understand it. And the stores that sell the toys can’t fathom not having a big pink toy section for girls and one filled with angry action figures for boys. So when DC wanted to make girl’s super hero action figures(and the action figure is just dolls for boys) , they didn’t make it pink. And stores didn’t know where to put them, because they weren’t pink and boys don’t buy girl action figures. It is so stupid. We want to combat gender sterotypes and think we are making progress. But then you go to the toy section in Target and know we are still so fucked.
The problem is not that the stereotypes exist, or even that they are extremely common. The problem is that individual people cannot be judged by those stereotypes, and yet they are. When nurses are refused jobs based on their penis, that's the problem. When engineers are refused a job because they have a vagina, that's a problem. The percentages of genders being interested in one thing or another are not necessarily the problem, even if I would like to see them more equalized (especially in politics)
On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants?
I'm just echoing what my sister said as an anecdote. And not infants, two year olds. Toddlers. And I have no idea, that's why we should look towards people with credentials (like that Peterson guy, or whoever it was that Plansix & co were discrediting as being 'alt-right').
|
On August 11 2017 07:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
People have no idea how much stuff is gendered or how it manifests in society.
Easiest one to look at is blue for boys and pink for girls, that's entirely socially constructed and pretty recently. Most of the guys here probably think their preference for blue over pink is something they determined internally without social influence when the reality is that it isn't.
Liking pink over blue doesn't break you from this either, that's not what it's about. Regardless, even if you do prefer pink over blue, you probably have more blue stuff than pink. About one hundred years ago, all boy babies were dressed in pink and girls were dressed in blue.
FDR wore a dress for much of his childhood (like most boys of the time). TV and Radio and now the internet, made marketing able to manipulate society in ways print and word of mouth never could.
People underestimate the influence of random social trends on real life consequences. It's easier to see with something as arbitrary and simple as color, it becomes harder to see when you think about professions or educational choices.
|
Marketing is about dividing up large groups into smaller ones and target them. That is why there are male and female skin products. Like women have magical skin that can't be cleaned by man soap. Toys are no different. They made the action figure to sell dolls to boys. They took the male doll form the doll set and gave it a gun. And after that it was known as GI JOE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=OH2UCKBg6xoC&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false
Classic. Red blooded American boys.(Chef's kiss).
|
On August 11 2017 07:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:30 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:23 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:21 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, there were a string of women at the foundation of coding. I guess it depends on what your definition of "coding became cool" is to suggest when men started becoming the main contributors. I'm inclined to go at least partially with Plansix' explanation, or rather the one he linked. Home computers generally were marketed to boys (as well as gaming consoles and other things that lead to "tech" in a broad sense). I grew up on the 1980, all things digital were marketed to boys in that era. Those shitty hand held football games that were just lights, there was no version marketed to for girls. It's not just that. Things like C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 etc (1mb memory extension!!!1) were aimed at boys through games mostly, and that's where i took my interest as well. "Hacking" around in Workbench kinda was the start for me. My sister on the other hand had zero interest in my computers/consoles. I'd argue it's a similar cause as to why men are considerably more inclined to work on cars (garages etc). At my age, there was no boy who didn't have a poster of a Countach, F40 or something on the wall. I can't say that i've ever seen a girl around age 10 being excited by a screaming V10. I know i was, spent spare time with dad wrenching because i took an interest in cars so early. My family business used to do packaging for Parker Brothers back in the day. We put their card games in boxes and it was pretty dope. We still have friends who work for toy companies, though we don’t do any of their packaging. Back in 2014 or so, when people were complaining about being unable to find a Black Widow figure for their girls(there were none). And then it happened again around the new Star Wars. So I asked our family friend why that was and what the hell was going on. Because it seemed like leaving money on the table. He told me that toy marking is one of the most entrenched and boring industries. And because of that, they are still deeply sexist. The concept of not having a boys and girls toy section is impossible for them, they cannot understand it. And the stores that sell the toys can’t fathom not having a big pink toy section for girls and one filled with angry action figures for boys. So when DC wanted to make girl’s super hero action figures(and the action figure is just dolls for boys) , they didn’t make it pink. And stores didn’t know where to put them, because they weren’t pink and boys don’t buy girl action figures. It is so stupid. We want to combat gender sterotypes and think we are making progress. But then you go to the toy section in Target and know we are still so fucked. The problem is not that the stereotypes exist, or even that they are extremely common. The problem is that individual people cannot be judged by those stereotypes, and yet they are. When nurses are refused jobs based on their penis, that's the problem. When engineers are refused a job because they have a vagina, that's a problem. The percentages of genders being interested in one thing or another are not necessarily the problem, even if I would like to see them more equalized (especially in politics)
Well, germany just had its first female minister of defense, and what a disaster she is. I disagree with wanting "to have shit equalized" in politics. I want good politicians (the best ones i could get), regardless of he/she has a dick or not. If that means predominantly male, i don't care. If that means predominantly female, i don't care either.
Fact is though, at least currently, you literally have the living incarnation of "females and the army discussion" as minister of defense, and she's making literally the worst impression one could do: she's restructuring the army to a nursing home for families. Literally.
edit:
Don't let my future wife hear that my soap can clean her skin too. My anti-aspirant (for men) is only safe because it's for men.
|
On August 11 2017 07:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:45 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:30 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:23 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:21 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, there were a string of women at the foundation of coding. I guess it depends on what your definition of "coding became cool" is to suggest when men started becoming the main contributors. I'm inclined to go at least partially with Plansix' explanation, or rather the one he linked. Home computers generally were marketed to boys (as well as gaming consoles and other things that lead to "tech" in a broad sense). I grew up on the 1980, all things digital were marketed to boys in that era. Those shitty hand held football games that were just lights, there was no version marketed to for girls. It's not just that. Things like C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 etc (1mb memory extension!!!1) were aimed at boys through games mostly, and that's where i took my interest as well. "Hacking" around in Workbench kinda was the start for me. My sister on the other hand had zero interest in my computers/consoles. I'd argue it's a similar cause as to why men are considerably more inclined to work on cars (garages etc). At my age, there was no boy who didn't have a poster of a Countach, F40 or something on the wall. I can't say that i've ever seen a girl around age 10 being excited by a screaming V10. I know i was, spent spare time with dad wrenching because i took an interest in cars so early. My family business used to do packaging for Parker Brothers back in the day. We put their card games in boxes and it was pretty dope. We still have friends who work for toy companies, though we don’t do any of their packaging. Back in 2014 or so, when people were complaining about being unable to find a Black Widow figure for their girls(there were none). And then it happened again around the new Star Wars. So I asked our family friend why that was and what the hell was going on. Because it seemed like leaving money on the table. He told me that toy marking is one of the most entrenched and boring industries. And because of that, they are still deeply sexist. The concept of not having a boys and girls toy section is impossible for them, they cannot understand it. And the stores that sell the toys can’t fathom not having a big pink toy section for girls and one filled with angry action figures for boys. So when DC wanted to make girl’s super hero action figures(and the action figure is just dolls for boys) , they didn’t make it pink. And stores didn’t know where to put them, because they weren’t pink and boys don’t buy girl action figures. It is so stupid. We want to combat gender sterotypes and think we are making progress. But then you go to the toy section in Target and know we are still so fucked. The problem is not that the stereotypes exist, or even that they are extremely common. The problem is that individual people cannot be judged by those stereotypes, and yet they are. When nurses are refused jobs based on their penis, that's the problem. When engineers are refused a job because they have a vagina, that's a problem. The percentages of genders being interested in one thing or another are not necessarily the problem, even if I would like to see them more equalized (especially in politics) Well, germany just had its first female minister of defense, and what a disaster she is. I disagree with wanting "to have shit equalized" in politics. I want good politicians (the best ones i could get), regardless of he/she has a dick or not. If that means predominantly male, i don't care. If that means predominantly female, i don't care either. Fact is though, at least currently, you literally have the living incarnation of "females and the army discussion" as minister of defense, and she's making literally the worst impression one could do: she's restructuring the army to a nursing home for families. Literally.
I know virtually nothing about the problems you face there, but here, considering more veterans kill themselves than die in combat we could do worse than that.
|
On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants?
You don't seem to have any clue on the topic, do you? Doesn't stop you from being a prick anyway.
There are actually a fair number of studies with mixed results on human children. Most of these confirm, that indeed children have exactly those preferences according to their gender. The only issue is that there is basically no study out there able to eliminate socialisation effects.
But at least for our closest relatives, it indeed seems to hold true:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)01449-1
|
On August 11 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:10 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking? Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places. Oh, now you want to explore possibilities. Perhaps possibilities like the suggestions in the memo could be part of that exploration? No? Fire him instead, you say? Because of a lawsuit and other certain circumstances? Or why exactly? Because of political circumstances? Exactly like he said? Sure, if you are comfortable with the idea that companies might decide it is complete horse shit and filled with poorly applied science? Edit: Do you truly believe the memo was the only reason he was let go? That there were not other internal issues that we are not fully aware of. Every professional in this thread has said they would never have sent that memo. Is it possible that maybe this wasn't his first delve into behavior that was not appropriate for the work place? I don't know, and neither do you. This isn’t a court of law, we don’t need to follow the rules of evidence. We can speculate. And given my professional experience, I doubt there was a single employee that worked with him that was surprised by the memo or his firing because of it.
Well you've also demonstrated a weird personal distaste for Damore with your repeated personal slandering of him for (evidently false) "alt-right media rounds", and his misleading LinkedIn with a PhD or something. The fact that you're now speculating with zero evidence that he must have had other transgressions at Google doesn't hold much sway for me. Clearly, you've created a very malevolent mental image of Damore for yourself.
Based on the tone in which the memo was written, he appears to have some semblance of self-awareness. Given that most employees don't have their employers looking to fire them, the base assumption is that he doesn't either until evidence is provided to the contrary. It has nothing to do with a court of law; it's just the basic grounds for a reasonable discussion.
|
On August 11 2017 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:48 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:45 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:30 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:23 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 07:21 a_flayer wrote:
Yeah, there were a string of women at the foundation of coding. I guess it depends on what your definition of "coding became cool" is to suggest when men started becoming the main contributors. I'm inclined to go at least partially with Plansix' explanation, or rather the one he linked. Home computers generally were marketed to boys (as well as gaming consoles and other things that lead to "tech" in a broad sense). I grew up on the 1980, all things digital were marketed to boys in that era. Those shitty hand held football games that were just lights, there was no version marketed to for girls. It's not just that. Things like C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 etc (1mb memory extension!!!1) were aimed at boys through games mostly, and that's where i took my interest as well. "Hacking" around in Workbench kinda was the start for me. My sister on the other hand had zero interest in my computers/consoles. I'd argue it's a similar cause as to why men are considerably more inclined to work on cars (garages etc). At my age, there was no boy who didn't have a poster of a Countach, F40 or something on the wall. I can't say that i've ever seen a girl around age 10 being excited by a screaming V10. I know i was, spent spare time with dad wrenching because i took an interest in cars so early. My family business used to do packaging for Parker Brothers back in the day. We put their card games in boxes and it was pretty dope. We still have friends who work for toy companies, though we don’t do any of their packaging. Back in 2014 or so, when people were complaining about being unable to find a Black Widow figure for their girls(there were none). And then it happened again around the new Star Wars. So I asked our family friend why that was and what the hell was going on. Because it seemed like leaving money on the table. He told me that toy marking is one of the most entrenched and boring industries. And because of that, they are still deeply sexist. The concept of not having a boys and girls toy section is impossible for them, they cannot understand it. And the stores that sell the toys can’t fathom not having a big pink toy section for girls and one filled with angry action figures for boys. So when DC wanted to make girl’s super hero action figures(and the action figure is just dolls for boys) , they didn’t make it pink. And stores didn’t know where to put them, because they weren’t pink and boys don’t buy girl action figures. It is so stupid. We want to combat gender sterotypes and think we are making progress. But then you go to the toy section in Target and know we are still so fucked. The problem is not that the stereotypes exist, or even that they are extremely common. The problem is that individual people cannot be judged by those stereotypes, and yet they are. When nurses are refused jobs based on their penis, that's the problem. When engineers are refused a job because they have a vagina, that's a problem. The percentages of genders being interested in one thing or another are not necessarily the problem, even if I would like to see them more equalized (especially in politics) Well, germany just had its first female minister of defense, and what a disaster she is. I disagree with wanting "to have shit equalized" in politics. I want good politicians (the best ones i could get), regardless of he/she has a dick or not. If that means predominantly male, i don't care. If that means predominantly female, i don't care either. Fact is though, at least currently, you literally have the living incarnation of "females and the army discussion" as minister of defense, and she's making literally the worst impression one could do: she's restructuring the army to a nursing home for families. Literally. I know virtually nothing about the problems you face there, but here, considering more veterans kill themselves than die in combat we could do worse than that.
That has absolutely nothing to do with gender, that has to do with the fact that plenty americans (regardless of gender) are willing to fuck up whoever costs money. That's a very different problem. edit: should've clarified, politicians
edit: sidenote, since you most likely won't understand since i didn't explain: she bought plastic rifles that don't shoot straight and defended the decision, she introduced special uniforms for pregnant soldiers, she introduced "military daycare centers" for kids, amongst other idiotic decisions.
What she's trying is to shoehorn females into the military to make it look more equalized, saving money at points where saving money will cost lives. It's absolutely retarded.
|
United States43232 Posts
On August 11 2017 07:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? I'm just echoing what my sister said. And not infants, two year olds. Toddlers. And I have no idea, that's why we should look towards people with credentials.
Weren't you a little curious about that claim? Didn't it sound odd to you when she made it? Think about it for a second. Obviously genetic preferences do, and indeed must, exist. Certain foods trigger pleasure centres in our brains to make us seek them out more because that was advantageous. And sure, gender based differences in genetic preferences also exist. Women, in general, like dick a whole lot more than men, in general, do. Again, obviously evolutionary advantageous, and obvious need for differences between the genders.
But a genetic preference on distinct gender lines when it comes to small plastic representations of larger metal devices for getting around? That's quite a claim to make.
I would find it much easier to believe that it's a social pressure than an innate one. After all, car ownership represents freedom, independence, and therefore power in the modern world. It's why Saudis don't want women driving, control over mobility creates dependence. The idea that it is innate and that the link between cars and patriarchal power is nothing more than a coincidence seems pretty unlikely to me.
|
United States43232 Posts
On August 11 2017 07:52 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? You don't seem to have any clue on the topic, do you? Doesn't stop you from being a prick anyway. There are actually a fair number of studies with mixed results on human children. Most of these confirm, that indeed children have exactly those preferences according to their gender. The only issue is that there is basically no study out there able to eliminate socialisation effects. But at least for our closest relatives, it indeed seems to hold true: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)01449-1
I said the preference wasn't innate. You called me a prick, insisted that the preference definitely existed (with mixed results, good job), and added that there was no way to eliminate socialization (and therefore show that it was innate).
Good fucking job.
|
Of course I'm curious, but considering I'm not having children myself in the situation that I am in, I haven't exactly made a study out of it. You probably haven't exactly studied it thoroughly either. Both of us should look towards people with credentials in the subject.
|
On August 11 2017 07:53 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:10 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking? Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places. Oh, now you want to explore possibilities. Perhaps possibilities like the suggestions in the memo could be part of that exploration? No? Fire him instead, you say? Because of a lawsuit and other certain circumstances? Or why exactly? Because of political circumstances? Exactly like he said? Sure, if you are comfortable with the idea that companies might decide it is complete horse shit and filled with poorly applied science? Edit: Do you truly believe the memo was the only reason he was let go? That there were not other internal issues that we are not fully aware of. Every professional in this thread has said they would never have sent that memo. Is it possible that maybe this wasn't his first delve into behavior that was not appropriate for the work place? I don't know, and neither do you. This isn’t a court of law, we don’t need to follow the rules of evidence. We can speculate. And given my professional experience, I doubt there was a single employee that worked with him that was surprised by the memo or his firing because of it. Well you've also demonstrated a weird personal distaste for Damore with your repeated personal slandering of him for (evidently false) "alt-right media rounds", and his misleading LinkedIn with a PhD or something. The fact that you're now speculating with zero evidence that he must have had other transgressions at Google doesn't hold much sway for me. Clearly, you've created a very malevolent mental image of Damore for yourself. Based on the tone in which the memo was written, he appears to have some semblance of self-awareness. Given that most employees don't have their employers looking to fire them, the base assumption is that he doesn't either until evidence is provided to the contrary. It has nothing to do with a court of law; it's just the basic grounds for a reasonable discussion.
I don’t like people that promote what I view as sexist stereotypes, especially in a company as powerful as Google. I don't care how much science they throw in there. I know what phrenology is too and that is why I take it with a grain of salt. I thought through this discussion that was abundantly clear. I have now been reminded of who Peterson is and I’m not really a fan of his work either. His output is to ideologically consistent and I can’t take anyone who using postmodernist Neo-Marxist seriously. Opinions. Have. Consequences.
|
On August 11 2017 07:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:52 mahrgell wrote:On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? You don't seem to have any clue on the topic, do you? Doesn't stop you from being a prick anyway. There are actually a fair number of studies with mixed results on human children. Most of these confirm, that indeed children have exactly those preferences according to their gender. The only issue is that there is basically no study out there able to eliminate socialisation effects. But at least for our closest relatives, it indeed seems to hold true: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)01449-1 I said the preference wasn't innate. You called me a prick, insisted that the preference definitely existed (with mixed results, good job), and added that there was no way to eliminate socialization (and therefore show that it was innate). Good fucking job.
Ah, so when basically all studies show this preference, and just argue about how large the influence of socialisation is, and with our closest relatives in the animal world the innate rpeference has also been shown, "it is quite a claim" to say that there is an innate preference...
Good fucking job.
|
On August 11 2017 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:45 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? I'm just echoing what my sister said. And not infants, two year olds. Toddlers. And I have no idea, that's why we should look towards people with credentials. Weren't you a little curious about that claim? Didn't it sound odd to you when she made it? Think about it for a second. Obviously genetic preferences do, and indeed must, exist. Certain foods trigger pleasure centres in our brains to make us seek them out more because that was advantageous. And sure, gender based differences in genetic preferences also exist. Women, in general, like dick a whole lot more than men, in general, do. Again, obviously evolutionary advantageous, and obvious need for differences between the genders. But a genetic preference on distinct gender lines when it comes to small plastic representations of larger metal devices for getting around? That's quite a claim to make. I would find it much easier to believe that it's a social pressure than an innate one. After all, car ownership represents freedom, independence, and therefore power in the modern world. It's why Saudis don't want women driving, control over mobility creates dependence. The idea that it is innate and that the link between cars and patriarchal power is nothing more than a coincidence seems pretty unlikely to me.
Or instead of freedom, independence, and power (weirdly abstract concepts for a toddler, though I understand you're trying to make this a sexist thing), maybe they're drawn to the images of fast car chases, races, and adventurous, adrenaline-type activities? Which men are known to drawn to moreso than women, and potentially has its roots in men being the primary hunters in civilization for hundreds of thousands of years. It's at least as plausible as a sexist toddler, but you overlooked the simple explanation.
|
Hours after CNN political commentator Jeffrey Lord sparked controversy by tweeting “Sieg heil!” to Media Matters’ president, the network has severed ties with the pro-Trump pundit.
“Nazi salutes are indefensible,” a CNN spokesperson said in a statement. “Jeffrey Lord is no longer with the network.”
money.cnn.com
Will he be the new comms director?
|
United States43232 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:01 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:56 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:52 mahrgell wrote:On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? You don't seem to have any clue on the topic, do you? Doesn't stop you from being a prick anyway. There are actually a fair number of studies with mixed results on human children. Most of these confirm, that indeed children have exactly those preferences according to their gender. The only issue is that there is basically no study out there able to eliminate socialisation effects. But at least for our closest relatives, it indeed seems to hold true: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)01449-1 I said the preference wasn't innate. You called me a prick, insisted that the preference definitely existed (with mixed results, good job), and added that there was no way to eliminate socialization (and therefore show that it was innate). Good fucking job. Ah, so when basically all studies show this preference, and just argue about how large the influence of socialisation is, and with our closest relatives in the animal world the innate rpeference has also been shown, "it is quite a claim" to say that there is an innate preference... Good fucking job.
Male chimps don't show an innate preference towards toy cars. And the idea that they would wouldn't even make sense because a chimp is not familiar with the concept of a car. What you would be measuring would be their reactions to the qualities of the specific toy, colours, textures, size, weight etc, rather than the conceptual sum of the traits.
|
When offered the choice of playing with either a doll or a toy truck, girls will typically pick the doll and boys will opt for the truck. This isn’t just because society encourages girls to be nurturing and boys to be active, as people once thought. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls — and their societies say nothing on the matter.
The monkey research, conducted with two different species in 2002 and 2008, strongly suggested a biological explanation for children’s toy preferences. In recent years, the question has become: How and why does biology make males (be they monkey or human) prefer trucks, and females, dolls?
New and ongoing research suggests babies’ exposure to hormones while they are in the womb causes their toy preferences to emerge soon after birth. As for why evolution made this so, questions remain, but the toys may help boys and girls develop the skills they once needed to fulfill their ancient gender roles.
First, in 2009, Gerianne Alexander, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, and her colleagues found that 3- and 4-month-old boys’ testosterone levels correlated with how much more time they spent looking at male-typical toys such as trucks and balls compared with female-typical toys such as dolls, as measured by an eye tracker. Their level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation (which can be estimated by their digit ratio, or the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers) also correlated with their visual interest in male-typical toys.
Source (Huffington Post, 2012)
Or is that source too alt-right for you to have any credibility?
On August 11 2017 07:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 07:53 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:10 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking? Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places. Oh, now you want to explore possibilities. Perhaps possibilities like the suggestions in the memo could be part of that exploration? No? Fire him instead, you say? Because of a lawsuit and other certain circumstances? Or why exactly? Because of political circumstances? Exactly like he said? Sure, if you are comfortable with the idea that companies might decide it is complete horse shit and filled with poorly applied science? Edit: Do you truly believe the memo was the only reason he was let go? That there were not other internal issues that we are not fully aware of. Every professional in this thread has said they would never have sent that memo. Is it possible that maybe this wasn't his first delve into behavior that was not appropriate for the work place? I don't know, and neither do you. This isn’t a court of law, we don’t need to follow the rules of evidence. We can speculate. And given my professional experience, I doubt there was a single employee that worked with him that was surprised by the memo or his firing because of it. Well you've also demonstrated a weird personal distaste for Damore with your repeated personal slandering of him for (evidently false) "alt-right media rounds", and his misleading LinkedIn with a PhD or something. The fact that you're now speculating with zero evidence that he must have had other transgressions at Google doesn't hold much sway for me. Clearly, you've created a very malevolent mental image of Damore for yourself. Based on the tone in which the memo was written, he appears to have some semblance of self-awareness. Given that most employees don't have their employers looking to fire them, the base assumption is that he doesn't either until evidence is provided to the contrary. It has nothing to do with a court of law; it's just the basic grounds for a reasonable discussion. I don’t like people that promote what I view as sexist stereotypes, especially in a company as powerful as Google. I don't care how much science they throw in there. I know what phrenology is too and that is why I take it with a grain of salt. I thought through this discussion that was abundantly clear. I have now been reminded of who Peterson is and I’m not really a fan of his work either. His output is to ideologically consistent and I can’t take anyone who using postmodernist Neo-Marxist seriously. Opinions. Have. Consequences.
I think some of you are pushing political goals beyond justification, and are willing to essentially bubble up to achieve this.
This is hyper-polarization at work.
|
On August 11 2017 08:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 08:01 mahrgell wrote:On August 11 2017 07:56 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:52 mahrgell wrote:On August 11 2017 07:42 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 07:38 a_flayer wrote:
And yet, my two year old niece, despite also given fake cars and fake tools to play with, picks the dolls and the fake kitchen every time according to my sister. And her dad cooks as much as her mother does, so its hardly that she just copies mommy. It's not entirely marketing that causes this split in genders, although I'm certainly one to blame marketing for a lot of things myself. From brainwashing people that they should be wearing make-up to the point where some women hardly dare to leave the house without it, to the idiocy around jewelry and other things. You think male infants have an innate genetic preference for toy cars that female infants lack? That's quite a claim, especially given that cars are quite recent. How might such a trait have evolved? What kind of evolutionary pressures do you suppose made a love of toy cars advantageous for male infants? You don't seem to have any clue on the topic, do you? Doesn't stop you from being a prick anyway. There are actually a fair number of studies with mixed results on human children. Most of these confirm, that indeed children have exactly those preferences according to their gender. The only issue is that there is basically no study out there able to eliminate socialisation effects. But at least for our closest relatives, it indeed seems to hold true: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)01449-1 I said the preference wasn't innate. You called me a prick, insisted that the preference definitely existed (with mixed results, good job), and added that there was no way to eliminate socialization (and therefore show that it was innate). Good fucking job. Ah, so when basically all studies show this preference, and just argue about how large the influence of socialisation is, and with our closest relatives in the animal world the innate rpeference has also been shown, "it is quite a claim" to say that there is an innate preference... Good fucking job. Male chimps don't show an innate preference towards toy cars. And the idea that they would wouldn't even make sense because a chimp is not familiar with the concept of a car. What you would be measuring would be their reactions to the qualities of the specific toy, colours, textures, size, weight etc, rather than the conceptual sum of the traits.
Luckily for the doll vs car discussion it is enough to show that the girls have a higher preference for the dolls compared to boys. But true, boys are not specifically wired towards cars. But this argument was never made anyway in this conversation. (at least not by a_flayer or me)
|
Canada11370 Posts
I think it's likely wouldn't be so specific as an inherent preference for cars, which is indeed a recent phenomenon. But rather the toy car fascination would be an outworking of Person-Thing Orientation, which note is a matter of tendency, but not an absolute binary divide. So the argument would go, males tend to be more thing oriented, a car is a thing and therefore, on average male children find it a more appealing toy. Whereas females tend to be more people oriented, a doll (is a close stand in for a person) and therefore, on average female children find it a more appealing toy. This is not true for all boys and girls, but it is true enough that the general fascination of boys on toy cars can be attributed to a greater orientation towards things.
And then we get into the Nature-Nurture, but the point is that nature has some explanatory power. It's not the whole of it, but Nurture cannot explain everything either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
