EPTWeapons, for example. All things violence, is another. Cowboy costumes, superheros. The list is endless.
edit: out of interest, where do gender roles in general come from? In Nature?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8363
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Weapons, for example. All things violence, is another. Cowboy costumes, superheros. The list is endless. edit: out of interest, where do gender roles in general come from? In Nature? | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:10 mahrgell wrote: 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) My Primaris Space Marines, War Convocation, and Imperial Knights are for sure dolls. I know this. I love them. EDIT: my 80s era transformers were also dolls. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:17 Wulfey_LA wrote: My Primaris Space Marines, War Convocation, and Imperial Knights are for sure dolls. I know this. I love them. They're figurines, what the fuck. We males invented a new word for those, use it. edit: Transformers (or my MASK collection for that matter) are Action Figures. Much to learn, you have. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 11 2017 02:21 Mohdoo wrote: Conservative talk show hosts can't even speak at Berkeley. You think this guy was under the impression his essay wouldn't cause a disturbance? Is your argument that this guy unwittingly caused a huge shit show? Do you or have you ever worked for a large company? I feel like after 6 months of working at a large company, someone would have an extremely clear idea as to how people talk, what they talk about, what is appropriate, what is charged etc. I don't know how long he was at Google, but I really think he had plenty of time to see that what he was doing was extremely abnormal and a lot riskier than what most people choose to do at work. If what you are saying is that he didn't expect to be fired, I can't help but think you haven't worked at a large company. Not that working at a large company is some badge of honor. Pros and cons to both, but my point is that the societal aspect is different. When you are that big of a company, it is simply not practical for each person to be some flourishing personality of an individual at work. People can't be publishing manifestos. With that many people, there are going to be at least so and so many people who freak out about views x, y or z. If I may make an analogy: When I was in Korea, I was really surprised by how quiet and considerate people were in Seoul. Especially on public transit. In my city, it is actually pretty loud because everyone feels comfortable just having a full on normal volume conversation where everyone is listening to you. This is possible because this isn't a bus full of people all doing the same thing. My friend explained to me that when there are that many people, it is extremely important that people are considerate of the other people in their surroundings and that it is important to keep a low profile. If everyone was loud and disorderly and whatever, it would be chaos. Truthfully, I would be TERRIFIED of sending something like he did to a co-worker over direct email. Even if I knew they agreed with me. The rules are a lot more strict when you've got that many people to manage. It's actually pretty telling that you think he should know how his views would be received by a progressive company, like the facade of that ideology fighting intolerance versus embodying intolerance has all faded. It legitimately follows that the protestors that shut down speech at Berkeley should clue him in that Google will react the same, because anti-free-speech protestors and a large progressive tech company share progressive ideals and responses. So in that, I absolutely 100% agree with you Mohdoo (and I don't get the chance to say that most months). He should've known. But he was an engineer in a tech company hoping to help women against a culture that chooses not to understand unique problems with diversity in the workforce. And maybe get them back on track with illegal corporate activity. In a company that prides itself on its workers solving innovative problems (from speaking to a PhD I know that got hired out of college by Google at impressive pay). So I have an easy time believing an engineer, given all their predilections that I share, thought the radical truth would brighten the horizon and change a culture that hurts women and minorities. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:17 Wulfey_LA wrote: My Primaris Space Marines, War Convocation, and Imperial Knights are for sure dolls. I know this. I love them. EDIT: my 80s era transformers were also dolls. I'm not sure any studies were done with Space Marines and toddlers. Sorry. But since "dolls vs cars" gets a good number of publications each year, why don't you just join the fray? You might be onto something here! Or you might actually search what kind of features of a doll cause this behaviour difference. On a scale from 1= space marine -> 10 = doll looking exactly like a human, how far do you have to go to find a noticable difference in interest? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 11 2017 02:24 Wulfey_LA wrote: I can't wait for all of Google-MGTOW guy's Conservative defenders to call for Federally guaranteed Free Speech rights against employers. I actually think political speech should be protected via invasive regulations and that you shouldn't be able to fired for political expression. As it stands, if your boss doesn't like the cut of your jib or some posts on Facebook or that you attended a rally, your ass is shitcanned. That's it. The 1st amendment only protects you from getting jailed by the Federal Government and had to be incorporated against the States. In Google-MGTOW guy's case, he wrote a memo that lambasted company policy and the company decided it liked its policy more than him. His ass is grass. Will any of his defenders call for invasive employment regulation that protects political expression from termination in a similar way we protect from termination on the basis of race? EDIT: to above, no, the legality matters here. Rights without remedies are not rights at all. As much as we talk about Free Speech in America, your Free Speech rights only go as far as any of the people who could fire you feel like letting it go. That the law at present doesn't protect Free Expression from your boss's opinion, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. We could have a society where bosses had to think before they shitcanned people who crossed over their internal and undisclosed lines of political acceptability. If you take complaining about political corrrectness seriously, then you should be for regulations on employers that prevent them enforcing strict political correctness with the threat of termination. Hey, call out societal problems as well as political problems. The trouble is myself and others never asked for legal solutions and redress, because it's Google's own damn problem if its going to hurt the company to satisfy cultural norms. That's more the obviously illegal activities, like silencing invited speakers with violence in public university campuses. Now labeling people who disagree with you to be part of an undesirable group of people (MGTOW in your case, alt-right in many others) is another problem we can hopefully address from a logical point of view. But maybe this Damore thing should lower my hope. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I have to ask though - what does any of that have to do with math? Unless women are resoundingly worse at math there's no real reason for a 75-25 split at a company focused around programming. I know there's some research showing men are better with rapidly judging distances and some other hand eye stuff, but that hardly seems sufficient to justify that ratio, or even relevant beyond tangentially to some types of graphical design. And I've never heard anyone prove that there's a biological reason for women to be worse at math than men (I highly, highly doubt that such a diverse field would be the exclusive domain of one sex or another) Also, women used to be much more prominent as programmers when the field was young. There are people still alive that could be asked about this topic. | ||
Falling
Canada11278 Posts
All anecdotal, but all in line with (as far as I can tell) evidence based psychological studies. Unless women are resoundingly worse at math there's no real reason for a 75-25 split at a company focused around programming. I know there's some research showing men are better with rapidly judging distances and some other hand eye stuff, but that hardly seems sufficient to justify that ratio. And I've never heard anyone prove that there's a biological reason for women to be worse at math than men (I highly, highly doubt that such a diverse field would be the exclusive domain of one sex or another) The argument isn't that women do not have the ability to work with math. The argument is, if you could pick any job in the world, will women on average choose or prefer a field that is fairly thing oriented and is less people oriented. I don't know, the freer our society becomes, the more we'll see if that is what women choose. But if that doesn't seem to be what they would enjoy in life that's fine by me. It's certainly not a field I would enjoy. But it's to do with preference, not ability. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:27 Nevuk wrote: This whole argument is one of the most ridiculous in a while. There are natural differences, sure female chimps may prefer dolls to cars without social pressure. Testosterone probably explains a greater interest in violent things like guns even at a young age. (I hope no one is suggesting that we pump girls full of testosterone to test, though) I have to ask though - what does any of that have to do with math? Unless women are resoundingly worse at math there's no real reason for a 75-25 split at a company focused around programming. I know there's some research showing men are better with rapidly judging distances and some other hand eye stuff, but that hardly seems sufficient to justify that ratio, or even relevant beyond tangentially to some types of graphical design. And I've never heard anyone prove that there's a biological reason for women to be worse at math than men (I highly, highly doubt that such a diverse field would be the exclusive domain of one sex or another) Also, women used to be much more prominent as programmers when the field was young. There are people still alive that could be asked about this topic. Not worse. Just less inclined to be interested in developing their skills in that area. If they apply themselves in the same way that the men in that field do, they do just as well (and possibly even exceed men on average). Just as men can develop skills that are more aligned with classically female interests, if they do choose to do so. It is an important distinction to make. It has never been a question of ability. Nobody here, I think, has ever made that claim except possibly to strawman. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:14 m4ini wrote: Nah, i did. Kwark is arguing a strawman there, because obviously there's toys other than cars catered to genders. Weapons, for example. All things violence, is another. Cowboy costumes, superheros. The list is endless. edit: out of interest, where do gender roles in general come from? In Nature? Gender roles are roughly from when life expectancy was terrifyingly low, birth rates were extremely high, war and conflict were expected, etc. So women would stay where it was relatively safe and raise the children, men would go off an die (probably). And most everything extended from that, as civilization progressed. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Gender roles are roughly from when life expectancy was terrifyingly low, birth rates were extremely high, war and conflict were expected, etc. So women would stay where it was relatively safe and raise the children, men would go off an die (probably). And most everything extended from that, as civilization progressed. That's not nature. Why do gender roles exist one way or the other in apes/big cats? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11278 Posts
I orientated more towards medieval or sci fi pretend violence, but that's an individual outworking of a much broader experience of pretend violence for boys... and that was even with very limited media and in a family/ community that discouraged playing soldier. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:27 Nevuk wrote: This whole argument is one of the most ridiculous in a while. There are natural differences, sure female chimps may prefer dolls to cars without social pressure. Testosterone probably explains a greater interest in violent things like guns even at a young age for men. (I hope no one is suggesting that we pump girls full of testosterone to test, though) I have to ask though - what does any of that have to do with math? Unless women are resoundingly worse at math there's no real reason for a 75-25 split at a company focused around programming. I know there's some research showing men are better with rapidly judging distances and some other hand eye stuff, but that hardly seems sufficient to justify that ratio, or even relevant beyond tangentially to some types of graphical design. And I've never heard anyone prove that there's a biological reason for women to be worse at math than men (I highly, highly doubt that such a diverse field would be the exclusive domain of one sex or another) Also, women used to be much more prominent as programmers when the field was young. There are people still alive that could be asked about this topic. Well they may be good at math, but they may have a preference for doing something else, that's what the chimp study was after - preferences. There is a difference between what your capabilities are and your preferences. Though I think once you get to the near-genius level, those tend to align. The question is, what are the preferences of women in general, what drives them? Beyond that, the issue of raw capability is biologically and socially complex. I agree with the google engineer in that, at the very least, people should be open to having a discussion on the issue. It seems like even that is too much to ask for at google (and probably many other companies) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I can't help but be impressed how much he expedited the process of "fired for stupidity" by doing so within a twit. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:31 m4ini wrote: Same is my experience. There's no boy ever who didn't hold a stickgun at some point or the other, or played.. The catch game, cop and bad guy? Don't know the english name for it. That's not nature. Why do gender roles exist one way or the other in apes/big cats? Actually, this argument about toy weapons is a tricky one, because it happens at an age where societal influences are already in full effect. And for instance it had been shown that the interaction between father and child greatly differs already at young age depending on the gender. Basically fathers are way more cuddly with their daughters and rougher and more (physically) challenging towards boys, even below the age of 1! Now there is no research I'm knowing about about causation between those things. But they show possible influences even at the youngest age on a almost subconcious level. This is also why all those studies on humans are really difficult. Many recent ones have been done with babies being not even being able to crawl. Just by what toy the baby prefers to look at or stretches his arm toward. But in the end, this entire research in a way is imho pointless, except to satisfy our curiousity. This entire "let's find out what nature wants us to be, so we can create the perfectly natural society" is kinda... moot. A final result is nearly impossible, will/would never been agreed upon and even if we had it, what would really be the conclusion from it? So if we talk about how we want to form our society, it would be rather helpful, if all sides could just drop this "this is the natural, thus correct way" argument, and the discussion would be indeed simply about the merits of ideas on the table. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Proportion_of_female_graduates_A_Complex_Formula.svg/510px-Proportion_of_female_graduates_A_Complex_Formula.svg.png) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002351/235155E.pdf Not sure what Iran is doing right the rest of the world isn't. Honestly I do think that computer games catering more to men may have something to do with why there were so few female programmers in say, 90s-2000s. Basically the most popular games were simulated violence, which holds far less appeal to most women, and that was sort of a gateway into playing around with code for a lot of people. It's pretty much equalized with mobile gaming though, so who knows in the future. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22710 Posts
As for gender roles they are something society constructs based on a variety of factors. You could take 8 clones of 20 people and place them in different environments and end up with different gender role divisions. Pretty sure gender roles in apes and big cats is like also comparing our justice systems. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:31 m4ini wrote: That's not nature. Why do gender roles exist one way or the other in apes/big cats? Well, you were talking about guns and stuff, so I assumed you meant for people. If you're talking pure biology, then it's the chicken and egg problem. Like, did the roles of lions come from their physical differences, or was it their differing behaviours that pushed their evolution to be more divergent? Or both. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:23 mahrgell wrote: I'm not sure any studies were done with Space Marines and toddlers. Sorry. But since "dolls vs cars" gets a good number of publications each year, why don't you just join the fray? You might be onto something here! Or you might actually search what kind of features of a doll cause this behaviour difference. On a scale from 1= space marine -> 10 = doll looking exactly like a human, how far do you have to go to find a noticable difference in interest? Space Marines and Barbie Dolls are very similar in a crucial way: each of them have wildly exaggerated secondary gender characteristics in line with societal fantasies. Space Marines are 400 pound trans humans who can eat rocks and best orks in feats of strength with their absurd muscle mass. Barbie's have perfect willowy forms, long hair, and the perky breasts of a 17 year old and are also rich as all hell thanks to their perfect man. To me, those are both the same things. Space Marines and Barbies are both exaggerating fantasies of hormonally driven gender strength, but on different axes. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 11 2017 08:13 Falling wrote: 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. I think the novel idea (okay, for purposes of widespread American+foreign internet discussion) is that the Nature side of Nature-Nurture cannot be defended without accusations of sexism being leveled by corporate higher-ups. Literally, arguing for working with statistically-overlapping but non-identical natural preferences in one way is an offense capable of getting you fired. The nurture argument sees no such societal or corporate-societal examinations; consider just how well accepted arguing that it's entirely the cause of sexism (institutional or implicit/unconscious sexism) in hiring practices. Consider also how little hairs would be raised if you think it's entirely due to nurtured/socialized differences from infancy in how women are treated and taught. But lift your finger to type that the nature argument is being overlooked and better hiring and general company practices could be changed to accommodate in a non-discriminatory way, and you're personally smeared and the paper you wrote is slandered for things it didn't say. And talk about giving useful ammo to truly despicable alt-right by lumping the third camp conscientious observers (good posts on that here by others) into their fringe. It's like shooting yourself in the foot intellectually (given Scandinavian studies at how progressive egalitarian policy creates higher employment sex disparities) and then shooting yourself in the other foot socio-culturally ("I'm not a big fan of those right people and their social issues, but seriously fuck those guys that call me alt-right for my opinions")+ Show Spoiler [Nice] + On August 11 2017 05:53 a_flayer wrote: Apparently pointing out some of the underlying issues in gender disparity and giving some points where this disparity can be addressed without attributing the disparity all to straight up misogyny is sufficient to be labeled sexist by some people here. But when Intels fantastic new diversity program doesn't result in 50% females amongst newly hired employees, it's partially because of the context of society, etc, etc. On August 11 2017 07:25 a_flayer wrote: The problem I have, which cropped up against just now, is that you seem to be dismissing some of underlying issues that were brought up by the memo when talking about it in the context of the memo (calling it "pseudoscience"), but recognize there are some underlying issues when talking about it in the lack of 50/50 representation at Intel. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the memo was backed with some credible sources - you simply dismiss them as false regardless of the qualifications of the people who did in the investigation into them, and yet cannot bring up any better reasons for this disparity. Only the same abstract claim that the memo attempts to explain with science. I'd say it's the one strategy that almost guarantees a new generation will reject whole-cloth the ideas of radical egalitarianism and social constructionism on display here. | ||
| ||
