Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 268

On June 01 2015 19:10 OtherWorld wrote:

My hypothesis is that females are not socially encouraged to take part in competitive activities, unlike males. It's probably a remnant of our old patriarchal societies & culture.

On June 01 2015 19:19 marvellosity wrote:

And testosterone.

On June 01 2015 18:52 helpman176 wrote:
Why do so few females play StarCraft or chess?

Is this specific to mental games? How does it look like in other sports?
Can the question be simplified to:
Why do so few females play competitive sports?

On June 01 2015 21:29 pschiu wrote:
Where can I write stuff (e.g. Google docs, notepad) but where I can easily add collapsible sub-sections and sub-sub-sections and so on? Such that a non-technical reader can easily read a brief overview and zoom in on sub-topics of interest?

On June 01 2015 18:52 helpman176 wrote:
Why do so few females play StarCraft or chess?

Is this specific to mental games? How does it look like in other sports?
Can the question be simplified to:
Why do so few females play competitive sports?

On June 01 2015 23:24 oGoZenob wrote:

They're. They are. Come on, you're a native speaker and I'm not, how difficult could that be !

On June 02 2015 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:


As a Filipino I find your use of the word "Native" offensive.

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 01 2015 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Social engineering.

Little girls are given dolls and told their pretty.
Little boys are given tools and told their smart.

Both believe what their told as the foundations of patriarchy gets built from children up.

On June 02 2015 01:54 helpman176 wrote:
When you say that "there are lots of women in competitive sports", can you present some data that supports that?
Naturally popular sports will have more women, but we are interested in percentages.

The thing that boys are given cars and girls are given dolls and that's how gender roles get established has been proven to be bullshit. See http://livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The notion that the female preference is influenced by society and biology makes sense, yet it is difficult to come up with an analysis/experiment that observes one or the other in isolation.

To say that culture is the only responsible factor assumes that society alone can change the status quo to get females more interested in competitive sports.
If there is no biological factor that hinders the development of this interest, then we would expect to see an almost linear increase in number of women interested in competitive sports as a society becomes more egalitarian over time.
Is this the case?

On June 02 2015 01:54 helpman176 wrote:
To say that culture is the only responsible factor assumes that society alone can change the status quo to get females more interested in competitive sports.
If there is no biological factor that hinders the development of this interest, then we would expect to see an almost linear increase in number of women interested in competitive sports as a society becomes more egalitarian over time.
Is this the case?

On June 02 2015 00:53 xM(Z wrote:

why can't they build a matriarchy alongside patriarchy?.
why it's imperative that patriarchy must fall/change/bow down to ... ?.

define concept, social-engineer said concept, profit? ...

On June 02 2015 06:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let me put an example:

In a patriarchy, the phrase "you hit like a girl" is an insult.
In a matriarchy, the phrase "you hit like a girl" would be a complement

The goal should be that the phrase "you hit like a girl" is confusing because it doesn't actual mean anything. Hitting like a girl and hitting like a boy shouldn't really register as anything different from each other.

On June 02 2015 09:52 Rollin wrote:

Your example makes no sense as regardless of society's perspectives/values, women are statistically weaker than men. That's a fact. It's considered insulting to equate something to a lesser version, so in the context of hitting (strength) where women have lesser strength, it will always be demeaning when said to a man. Saying it to a female is strange though.

Usage of the term may decrease and become distasteful though.

On June 02 2015 12:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:


And the problem you have is the values you place on what is a complement or not.

In today's patriarchal society, good throwing is determined by strength. That is not necessarily true in a matriarchal society which might value something else as important in the act of throwing.

That's what you don't seem to get. Something being a compliment or an insult depends purely on what is valued in the described topic. "You hit like a girl" as you say, is an emphasis on female weakness. But it's possible that "you hit like a girl" in a matriarchal society is a celebration of the person's grace or form. You being unable to see that shows how limited to patriarchal constructs your point of view is. Because, remember, it's about what is valued (not measured) that determines whether something is patriarchal or matriarchal--and that is because a matriarchal society will value and praise different things than a patriarchal one.