|
I seriously can't believe how essentializing people are of men and women in this thread. Quick generalizations undermine the crucial differences between people. When someone says women are like X and men are like Y and hide that statement behind the mistaken belief that because it is "generally true" that it is ok to essentialize that to all men and women. The problem with this is three-fold:
1) It assumes a biological difference between men and women and not cultural conditioning, which has a bigger impact on which men or women end up being driven to competition versus non-competitive activities. When people continue to generalize they contribute to that cultural conditioning, making is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2) Make an excuse for why women participate in e-sports less then men instead of seeking a way to increase women's participation in online gaming. Maybe we should look to the way our community is structured instead of making excuses for why the exclusion is taking place.--Ie the productive question is "what can be done" not "why is it like this" if your answer to why is simply that it's "natural."
3) Essentializing is the first step to discrimination and stereotyping. Even if something is generally true (which I'm not conceding on this point, but let's just say it is) continue to use such essentializing rhetoric creates a stereotype that once again perpetuates the problems that exist. Put simply, if someone labels women as whole-sale less competitive in nature than men the end result is that when people encounter women they approach them as if they are not competitive in nature--treating them different than the might otherwise want. Generalizations are not excuses for lazy argumentation or labeling... especially when that labeling is used as a reason why people's lack of participation are acceptable.
Bottom line is this: If online gaming is important and valuable then we should seek to extend these benefits (even if just fun and enjoyment) to all instead of preserving its patriarchal underpinnings.
|
More bullshit about hurting esports?
Let me just say this: nothing is hurting esports.
You can make valid arguments for the Blizzard versus KeSPA debacle; consequently, that only affects BW and the Korean scene. Everything else is slim pickings. Now, I don't necessarily agree with all the Kelly Milkies or Lindsey Sporrer's of the world, but I can understand the executive reasoning behind it. To a certain extent. To be frank, I don't find either one of them aesthetically pleasing, but that is an entirely different story. Some people like mandarin oranges while others like tangerines. The major concern I have is with the fact they came unprepared for the roles assigned to them by GOM and NASL. It's not their fault. It's the stupid bookies who thought they were ready for the limelight. Our system for booking people is incredibly flawed.
A little aside: I heard Kelly on Boris' stream the other day and I still find her actual voice highly unattractive. I gave it a shot. It’s been a while since I heard her last ramble. She’s made some improvement, but I still tuned out rather abruptly. It goes far beyond her articulation; she was pronouncing her words much better. It's the fact her voice breaks over the mike and that’s why the message gets lost most of the time. That's the biggest no-no in radio. I'm still adamant on not giving Kelly a microphone. They don't have to put her on air. She can do something behind the scenes. No problem. She wants to be an On Air personality? I don't buy it.
When it comes to broadcasting standards in my neck of the woods you need to have an established voice. For instance, radio and disc jockeys around here usually have very crisp soothing voices. I don’t know the broadcasting standards in Singapore, but I do know the other markets very well and I have a very hard time believing anyone at network would put her on camera. Not in the English-speaking world anyway. She can keep chasing the dream though. You need chops and this goes way beyond gender.
Let me elaborate. Very few English casters have the proper skill sets for a major radio station let alone network TV. I would have a very hard time selling a guy like Dan and Nick even and that’s supposed to be the best we’ve got. The only person I know who has any marketability would be none other than the brash TotalBiscuit. He has the most established voice in the business (don’t take this the wrong way, when I say established I mean a strong, powerful voice; not his viewership). He has other skills that make him a good candidate. This includes his out-there personality and the ability to talk on the fly. Once again, the emphasis is on the voice and that’s the major focus of this rant.
I'll take it a step further. You know those girls who speak in Valley? Otherwise known as Valley Speak (I know it's redundant, so sue me). For those who aren't familiar with the term Valley think Clueless or Legally Blonde. Kelly annoys me just as much as those women. On the other hand, I can understand Valley quite clearly, although the dialect is just as annoying and it really sends me the wrong impression.
Then again, I can recall an English exam I wrote in '96 where low and behold... the article was written by a journalist who was fluent in Valley Speak and how she had to go through peaks and valleys to get where she is today. If you weren’t aware, Valley Girls have a really bad rep in North America (over here we don’t call them Valley Girls, we call them Japs—not to be mistaken for Japanese people, but well-off Jewish kids), especially in the wonderful world of academia. These women can be very smart, but I find many of them that lack the ability to articulate themselves in a clear and concise manner when it comes to public speaking. This is the general stereotype we have of them to say the least. In the end, this sends people the wrong message such as me. Sound like anyone familiar?
Back to my critique on the Valley girl article. The woman blew me away. Everything from her writing to her style was posh. The piece was in Valley Speak and her point was crystal clear; not to mention, very witty as well. Earth-shattering really. She like totally changed my perspective of her within the first two paragraphs. I digress.
With that said, if they want to contribute let them try to contribute. Someone really needs to show them the ropes though. Lindsey wasn’t fucking ready. Way to throw her into the lion’s den. I would have a few choice words for the person who ultimately made that decision. You don’t want to be Clueless. You want to be Legally Blonde.
I cannot believe how many silly executive decisions I’ve seen and this game is barely a year old. For the guys who have been in the business prior whether it is BW or WCIII. You should really know better by now. With that said, you cannot blame Kelly or Lindsey for the opportunities given to them. It’s not their fault. Instead you should be pointing the finger at the executives who made the decision that they were ready. Newsflash, train your fucking employees or find someone who can. Live and learn.
|
On July 15 2011 18:44 Elzar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 18:39 Pandemona wrote:On July 15 2011 18:33 Elzar wrote:On July 15 2011 18:26 SEA_GenesiS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter. Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL. The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature . Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year. Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female. Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect. If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments. Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem? I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports. IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this? I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified. Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker PlayerShe is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker! I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =) I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though.
Essentially, male mammals are the testing ground for novel mutations, as men are reproductively expendable. That is, a male can have much more offspring than a female, for obvious reasons.
|
Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though.
This is the most essentialistic statement yet that's been posted.... and continues to assume a biological and not a cultural rationale to why it is (especially when the poster goes onto use evolution as the justification for it). There is not an intrinsic difference between male and female thought... and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the "variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women." The smartest of men are not smarter than the smartest of women. I'll revise that statement: there is no standard of intelligence where you can objectively compare who has a higher mental ability because what people value in intellect and ability are different. You can also note that the majority of tests that measure things like intelligence are made by white males with cultural biases figured into them. There is a lot more evidence showing that things like IQ tests entrench perceived divisions between races and gender than there is evidence proving men to be smarter or more competitive in nature than women.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51475 Posts
On July 15 2011 18:44 Elzar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 18:39 Pandemona wrote:On July 15 2011 18:33 Elzar wrote:On July 15 2011 18:26 SEA_GenesiS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter. Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL. The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature . Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year. Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female. Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect. If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments. Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem? I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports. IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this? I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified. Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker PlayerShe is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker! I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =) I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Yeah, totally agree. They are saying to themselves they arent good enough to compete with men by settig up there own tournaments/leagues/divisions whatever. If they just tried to (for example using GSL) GSL code A, and got in then people would take notice of it, rather then them playing again female players only who no one has heard of anyway because there not on the main stage!
|
Russian Federation138 Posts
There will be more girls when e-spotrs becomes more mature, when top players will be earning more money and would date models. Then the viewership of the tourneys will be more casual people and not gamers. Then girls will get into it)
As for playing starcraft i dont think many girls will do it. It's not necessary too. You dont expect everyone who watches football to play, it right? Especially when they are girls.
|
How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
|
On July 15 2011 21:46 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though. This is the most essentialistic statement yet that's been posted.... and continues to assume a biological and not a cultural rationale to why it is (especially when the poster goes onto use evolution as the justification for it). There is not an intrinsic difference between male and female thought... and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the "variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women." The smartest of men are not smarter than the smartest of women. I'll revise that statement: there is no standard of intelligence where you can objectively compare who has a higher mental ability because what people value in intellect and ability are different. You can also note that the majority of tests that measure things like intelligence are made by white males with cultural biases figured into them. There is a lot more evidence showing that things like IQ tests entrench perceived divisions between races and gender than there is evidence proving men to be smarter or more competitive in nature than women.
Do you people really believe what you say? That the only biological difference between men and women is the difference in sexual organs?
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
That you don't like it, does not make it not so.
|
man it so unfair that celeberties who havnt done anything useful with there life get more attention than people who realy deserver it -.-
how often on TV do u see doctors getting awards for saving people lifes, proberly very rarley
but when some usless 20 yr old with a nice body who has rich parents says something slightly racist the entire front page of a newpaper is covering it
consumerism isnt fair ftw
|
On July 15 2011 10:28 Nothingtosay wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote:
Your OP is misleading and is bound to start a flame war.
Gender Disparity in Esports != unwarranted fan clubs.
In this particular case there may a connection but would you argue if a Probulous fan club sprung up?
Please clarify what you are trying to say because the women in Esports thing has been done to death. I really don't see why this thread would make anyone angry
People on this forum get angry at literally anything.
|
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote:
How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point.
Nobody complains about female only tournaments.
It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
|
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence?
The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture.
My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
|
On July 15 2011 22:05 Elzar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote:
How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes. You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts. Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
|
I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_-
I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature.
Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there.
StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
|
On July 15 2011 22:13 Utinni wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 22:05 Elzar wrote:On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote:
How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes. You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts. Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it. The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc. Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope... It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP." The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of?
If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote:
I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_-
I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature.
Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there.
StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman? 
I'm just joking, i see what you're getting at. 
|
the Dagon Knight4002 Posts
Actually no, sorry. I'm staying right out of this.
Won't get involved.
|
On July 15 2011 22:13 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it. Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence? The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture. My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
Learn to read. "primarily" does not mean "solely". IQ tests are not racially/gender biased. They are a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence, in that people who score highly on IQ tests, are those who are regarded by other people as intelligent.
Because those female traits are not forms of intelligence. Emotion is the bloody antethesis of intelligence: "thinking with your heart, instead of your head.". Cooperation is not intelligence. Competiveness is not intelligence. Competition is equated as male, because men are more competitive than women on average. g is the measure of intelligence.
They have a small cultural influence, though there is a large nutritional influence to many of them. The only matriarchal societies on earth, are hunter gatherer societies. Hardly the pinnacle of civilization. Yes, science does back up patriarchal claims. You will have to do a lot better than spouting platitudes, to convince me that the social system that built all civilizations is not better than the alternative, which is only found in ghettos and hunter gatherer tribes...
|
On July 15 2011 22:22 SirJolt wrote:
Actually no, sorry. I'm staying right out of this.
Won't get involved.
Second best post in entire thread (next to the first reply)
That sailor certainly wants to deny all biological facts.
|
On July 15 2011 22:22 SirJolt wrote:
Actually no, sorry. I'm staying right out of this.
Won't get involved.
I hate it when people do that. Makes me so curious to know what was posted before the edit ><
|
On July 15 2011 22:13 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it. Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence? The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture. My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
The guy is just stating statistical facts, and is talking about variability within groups which you don't seem to understand what it is. Most likely men would have more extreme cases when it comes to your female strengt stereotype abilities as well, it doesn't matter if the mean is higher or lower.
I kind of agree that saying things like "men are biologically more competitive" can be a problematic statement, but someone talking about how it varies within groups you are obviously aware of the individual variance that this involves. Saying that the cause for such a difference lies in evolution probably means essentialism, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less scientifically sound than any discourse theory or social construct theory. At least the speculation in evolution is based on something more than a personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
