|
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 06:16 ComaDose wrote:
whaaaat? what do people that have a lot of sex dress like?
why do you think that this article saying that no feminists want construction jobs makes it true? how does that make me have to prove it's not true? because some anti-feminist blogger said it? They cry all the time about how there is not enough female CEOs. They don't complain about the gender imbalance in hardworking job such as construction because they don't care about it.
Again, not true. The reason why you often see articles detailing the lack of of women occupying CEO or political positions is that those are positions of power, and that positions of power proportionally go to men more than women. The construction jobs of simple workers are not positions of power and are from this point-of-view no different than plenty of jobs which women occupy disproportionately. Regardless, feminists have decried gender imbalance and sexism in physical jobs such as those found in construction. You'll find plenty of examples if you do a quick search on Google - this was the first example which popped out:
We need to increase the number of women in the construction industry so that we are not a rarity. We must also encourage labor unions and construction employers to include sexual harassment training as part of their health and safety plans. Women deserve to have access to skilled trades, and they deserve to be respected as a fellow colleague.
Link.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:
No, that is you making a claim which is not grounded in reality, which is why you're not substantiating it with anything. Beyond this, however, I'd like to point out that you seem to be misunderstanding what the influence of culture means - through the integration of gender stereotypes early in their development, women and men are notably led to believe differently in their capabilities, in what can be expected of them, and in what they should "naturally" aspire to. The effects of this are well documented by social science research (as well as neuropsychology). Again, read the references I provided you with. The only way to settle this debate is to artificially create an island full of population where gender roles are not defined or reversed and see what happens. Everyone will have to be babies so they are not influenced by anything. If men starts acting like stereotypical men and women start acting like stereotypical women. Then I am correct in believing that biology plays more role than culture. If the reverse is true, then you are right.
That's not the only way to settle the debate, since the influence of gender roles has been extensively studied by the social sciences, psychology and psychoneurology. Even the researchers which seek to highlight the impact of biology do not deny the role played by culture.
With regards to the scenario you suggest, it would not be sufficient to "not define" gender roles since roles similar to those found in our societies could very well emerge through the construction of that population's culture. What would be needed would be, as you also suggest, to look at what happens when gender roles are reversed (or completely equal). Guess what? Such studies have already been made on some tribes from different parts of the world, and they have underlined the role of culture. For example, a 1996 study on the Gurungs of Nepal, which had a relatively egalitarian approach to the socialization of boys and girls, found that there were no significant gender differences between the two on an embedded figures test (measuring spatial visualization). In comparison, the Brahmins (also from Nepal), in whose population conformity and social sensitivity are socialized more in girls than in boys, boys had higher scores [Shrestha, A. B., & Mishra, R. C. (1996). "Sex differences in cognitive style of Brahmin and Gurung children from the hills and plains of Nepal"]. Another similar study is the one done by J. W. Berry on the Temne tribe in Africa and the Canadian Eskimos from the Baffin Islands, which examined their scores on various spatial tasks. The Eskimos had better results, but there were no differences between females and males among the Eskimo population, while the men scored better than the women among the Temne. Male and female Eskimos tend to engage in the same activities in terms of travel and hunting, activities which contribute to developing spatial skills, while for the Temne the sexes are more separated in their activities, and it is mostly males who travel [Berry, J. W. (1966). "Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills"]. A third example, before I stop, is the very interesting study recently published by Moshe Hoffman, Uri Gneezy and John A. List on "two distinct tribes in Northeast India (the Khasi and the Karbi)". By comparing the two, one being patrilineal and one being matrilineal, they reached the following results:
In this study, we use a large-scale incentivized experiment with nearly 1,300 participants to show that the gender gap in spatial abilities, measured by time to solve a puzzle, disappears when we move from a patrilineal society to an adjoining matrilineal society. We also show that about one-third of the effect can be explained by differences in education. Given that none of our participants have experience with puzzle solving and that villagers from both societies have the same means of subsistence and shared genetic background, we argue that these results show the role of nurture in the gender gap in cognitive abilities.
[...]
Our paper shows that the gender gap in spatial abilities in the task that we study interacts with culture. In the matrilineal society, we observe no gender difference in this task. These results show that nurture plays an important role in the gender gap in spatial abilities. Our results also indicate that providing equal education and improving treatment of women at the family level may make a difference; however, this implication should be taken with a grain of salt, because causality cannot be ascertained. Nevertheless, the implications for both policymakers and ordinary people interested in reducing the gender gap cannot be overstated: reducing the gender gap in spatial abilities may reduce the gender gap in the science, engineering, and technology workforce.
Source: Moshe Hoffman, Uri Gneezy and John A. List (2011), "Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities".
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:
First of all, there are several documented examples of hunter-gatherer societies which do not follow such a men-women divide and where women hunted just as much as men (if not more), including some that have survived to this day - the Agta in the Philippines and the Aka in Africa being two examples. Secondly, such arguments on physical abilities tend to overlook that women are often perfectly capable of reaching the physical requirements needed to accomplish a particular job as well as is needed. Thirdly, differences in physical abilities are not differences in cognitive abilities and predispositions, which is what is being discussed here. How a majority of hunting-gathering societies organized is in no way a relevant argument with regards to the gender roles feminism is fighting against today, which are grounded in false perceptions of differences between genders, many of which you seem to be espousing and reluctant to abandon. Just because there are exception to the rules doesn't mean that it's the norm. The majority of ancient societies was led by men.
Yes, and? How does that support your position in any way? I directly addressed this in the paragraph you replied to.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:
It's hilarious to claim that women "often perfectly capable of reaching the physical requirements needed to accomplish a particular job as well as is needed." Then explains why the US army's requirement for women is lower than men's. Explains why the best of the best athletes and e-athletes are male. Look around you, an average men is taller than an average women. Men are superior in term of physical ability. If you deny that, you are blind. There are differences in genders and its not perception, it's fact.
Where did I deny that men are on average superior in terms of physical abilities? Can you stop using strawmen? We were talking about cognitive abilities, and in addition like I said for most of the jobs we were talking about (engineers, mathematicians, business executives, etc.), it is absurd to to even mention average differences in physical abilities.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:As much as you want to cite 100 articles supporting your view. I can do the same. ex http://www.livescience.com/20011-brain-cognition-gender-differences.html. The battle of nature vs nurture in the scientific community has never been won. That article raised a good point that women choose to not take difficult jobs and instead choose to take care of the young and elders - the role that they've played for 100000000 of years. Men are good at inventing,creating,building roles and women are good at the supporting role. So why reverse it? It works the way it is.
First of all, that article (and Diane Halpern which it quotes) does _not_ say that women "choose not to take difficult jobs". That is you projecting your sexist beliefs onto the content of the article. The same goes for your assertion that "Men are good at inventing,creating,building roles and women are good at the supporting role" - that is, again, your sexist belief and not reality. If you actually took the time to read Diane Halpern's research, you would see that she does not even remotely suggest that. Her position is that biology does play somewhat of a role with regards to certain specific abilities, but that its role is not independent of cultural factors and that the abilities are very specific and modest (i.e. certain aspects of spatial visualization, but not spatial visualization as a whole) - certainly not the big categories you make them out to be. Beyond this, however, I'd like to remind you that I have repeatedly written that nobody is saying that there are no biological differences whatsoever. The point is that the role of innate biological factors is limited, that neural development flexibility allows for important variations based on the influence of the environment, and that research has precisely shown the importance of cultural factors, as I evidenced above. The categories you evoke are gender stereotypes which have no solid foundation in biology.
And why reverse it? Because there is no reason to keep alive sexist stereotype which oppress women.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:
I'm not sure how many times you are going to be repeating the false assertion that the biological differences between men and women are significant with respect to their cognitive abilities, but it won't make it true. You are the one who seems to be confusing his sexist stereotypical beliefs with reality. And bringing up terrible analogies with no relevance whatsoever won't help your case. Until I see women beat the best men at sports, esports, inventions, scams, chess, poker etc. I'm not going to stop making these claims. You can claim whatever you want. The result speaks for itself. Men in general outperform women with respect to their cognitive abilities. Women's happiness rate is at an all-time low because they've been going against their biology.
Again, you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about. The research on the topic simply does not agree with you. And of course you're going to see more men than women in the examples you cited, precisely because of the very existence of the cultural factors I evoked earlier (except for sports, in which it is a matter of physical differences). How do you explain the results of the three studies I just provided you with, if biology plays the one true deterministic role that you think it does?
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:
This is quite a hilarious take on the burden of proof. Sorry, but making a statement doesn't suddenly shift the burden of proof to the one who's dubious of the statement. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. To go back to your (once again failed) analogy, when we found out that the Earth wasn't flat, we "found out" through evidence. Those who claimed that it was flat therefore had to address that evidence. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence provided to support the claim that "feminists want to be above men", so the burden of evidence still lies with you/the author. They want to be CEO but they don't want hard labor jobs? They want to be above men in that context that they want men to do all the hardworks and reap all the benefit.
Wrong and wrong, and still no evidence to substantiate your claims.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes. If that is true then why arn't feminists protesting that women get the child 80% of the time during divorce? Why do women and children get off the boat first when a boat sinks? Why do female models get paid more than male models? Why can't men participate with women sports yet women can participate in men's sport when there is no female sport team in school. Why are there more women in college today than men?
Feminists do tackle the issues you mention. With regards to the sports, it is a matter of differences in physical abilities, which nobody is denying.
By the way, like Kwark pointed out, it is hilariously contradictory that you are simultaneously denouncing that women are getting the child more often in cases of divorces because of cultural gender roles, and denying the impact of cultural gender roles when it comes to women being in disadvantageous positions.
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. The feminism movement only care when its women. They see men as the enemy. There is no equality here. Sure at one point I admit that women are at a disadvantaged. But today? come on now.
Yes, "come on now", stop being in denial with regards to the impact of gender roles. Stop being in denial with regards to how underrepresented women are in positions of power. Stop being in denial with regards to the disadvantages faced by women in our societies. Stop being in denial with regards to what we can still do to improve the status of women.
|
|
|
United States41638 Posts
Ah yes, the a priori argument from the invisible hand. If we assume everyone is a rational actor with perfect information and that all businesses exist in perfect competition so that any suboptimal business practice is immediately punished by the loss of market share to another business which is identical in all ways but that one practice then gender discrimination would cease and because we're making all of the above assumptions then clearly, whatever the evidence from the real world, gender discrimination in employment cannot be a thing. Glad we got that cleared up. Who needs evidence when you've got obsolete economic theory to derive conclusions from.
|
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
If women do really have the same abilities as men and its really society's fault that they are not performing as well as men. Then we must first explore why that's the case to begin with. Oh that's right, an average man is stronger than an average woman. If a woman tries to fight back she is going to get destroyed most of the time because back in the stone age there is no law preventing a man from hitting a woman. This won't change until an avg woman is as physically strong as an avg man. When that happen we can talk equality.
Did you perhaps miss the part where we are not in the stone age anymore? Why should women not being as physically strong as men on average have any relevance to their proportions in occupying positions of power in today's societies?
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
Furthermore, nobody care about random isolated tribes on the north pole, they are essentially equal to a gold league of legends players who wont/didnt accomplish anything in history. Let's take a look at the biggest world empire in history. Rome empire, Greece, Mongols, etc, were all led by men and gender roles were defined. Men are on top, women supported men. The formula worked.
You do realize that focusing on populations exhibiting cultural traits different from ours in terms of gender roles was your own thought experiment, right? You made that suggestion to assess the influence of culture. I guess you weren't expecting that such studies had actually already been done and that they had proven the role of culture. I'm sorry you shot yourself in the foot there - your own thought experiment proved you wrong. Ouch.
Yes, the world empires you mention were led by men, notably because of how gender roles were defined in the cultures in which they emerged. Nazi Germany was also led by men. What does that tell us about the abilities of women and what the place of women in our societies should be? Nothing.
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
Tackle the issues for men? Yea right, no feminists are going to go out and protest on the street that women almost always get the child during the divorce. Just because you says something doesn't mean it actually true.
That's rich coming from the guy who keeps making claims about feminism without substantiating them whatsoever - like you just did again. Kwark and me are both feminists, and we both told you that we are critical of gender discrimination with regards to child custody (and this also applies to gender discrimination against working single mothers, by the way).
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
I'm not denying the impact of cultural gender roles. I'm just saying that the root of why everyone is the way they are stems from biology. And that in turn drive gender roles.
The problem is that your idea of how "everyone is the way they are" is not rooted in evidence/science. You are imagining categories ("being good in supporting roles" for women, for example) that have simply no basis in biology whatsoever. The minor differences that have been observed do not support your categories (and their influence pales in comparison to cultural factors with regards to the issues we're debating).
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
If there is no cognitive differences in men and women, why do men still >>> women in card games like poker or a completely logical game like chess. Why do the best men still outperform the best women in those areas? It's not a matter of physical differences or cultural expectation in those situations. It's obvious that men are just simply better. So why temper with nature? Women are very good at the support role so why not keep it that way? Let's not give bronze players maphack just so they can be in master league. If women want to prove that they are equal. They are going to have to outperform men in sports and activities like chess instead of competing in a separated league.
Again, sports which involve physical activity are a different matter because of the differences between men and women in terms of physical capabilities - can you get that through your head already?
With respect to poker and chess, there are proportionally more men at the top because of cultural and mathematical factors. Culturally, women are not as encouraged to play chess as men, and expectations regarding their results are lower, which participates in them not being as interested/not putting as much effort/not believing in their capabilities. Mathematically, there are simply less women actually engaging fully in these activities (because of the initial cultural filter), which makes it expected that men end up at the top.
On April 05 2014 04:37 Jumperer wrote:
Just because something is underrespresent doesn't mean that there is something wrong with it. In hollywood, there are more roles for men than women. Men also get paid more by a fair amount. Are the directors and filmmakers trying to oppress women? No, they are just trying to conduct business and make money. Business do what they can to make money. They could careless about anything else. If they think that a woman CEO will bring money to the company, they'll make that woman a CEO. This is why the wage gap doesn't make sense, because if women get paid that much less like feminists claim then why don't companies just hire all women and rake in on the profits?
One reason is that humans are not fully rational and devoid of biases, in particular gender biases. If you had read the construction job article I linked to in my previous post, for example, you would have seen that the two female interns working on a construction site were immediately chosen by their male bosses to oversee minor tasks, while the two male interns were directly chosen to oversee major aspects of the construction site. This choice was made without any attention given to their respective resume and abilities. Another reason is that the gender roles integrated by women lead them proportionally to different career choices than men.
And yes, women being underrepresented in positions of power is problematic, because there is no actual reason for them to be underrepresented, and they suffer from that underrepresentation.
|
|
|
On April 05 2014 06:18 Jumperer wrote:
if there are gender discrimination then why the hell is women's unemployment rate currently lower than men's unemployment rate? What discrimination are they really facing? Sure,There might be gender discrimination in the past but it's not such a big deal anymore.
The discrimination they are facing was mentioned earlier in the discussion, as were the gender roles which lead them to less-paying and more part-time jobs. Yes, it is a big deal, since they earn considerably less than men on average.
Women's unemployment rate is lower because women have proportionally more part-time, low-paying jobs (or jobs in sectors which were less affected by the recession but tend to pay less). See here.
|
all I am learning from this thread is that feminists in the USA/western/developed world literally don't understand what oppression or inequality is. Look to the middle east, or more conservative countries that actually require these kinds of feminist movements. The irony here is that you devalue women by not recognizing their equality in the first place, and make them look like weak children that need help with your warped ideologies.
|
United States41638 Posts
On April 05 2014 06:48 biology]major wrote:
all I am learning from this thread is that feminists in the USA/western/developed world literally don't understand what oppression or inequality is. Look to the middle east, or more conservative countries that actually require these kinds of feminist movements. The irony here is that you devalue women by not recognizing their equality in the first place, and make them look like weak children that need help with your warped ideologies.
"some people have it worse off so we shouldn't attempt to solve problems"
|
On April 05 2014 06:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 06:48 biology]major wrote:
all I am learning from this thread is that feminists in the USA/western/developed world literally don't understand what oppression or inequality is. Look to the middle east, or more conservative countries that actually require these kinds of feminist movements. The irony here is that you devalue women by not recognizing their equality in the first place, and make them look like weak children that need help with your warped ideologies. "some people have it worse off so we shouldn't attempt to solve problems"
put more energy into solving actual problems?
|
On April 05 2014 06:48 biology]major wrote:
all I am learning from this thread is that feminists in the USA/western/developed world literally don't understand what oppression or inequality is. Look to the middle east, or more conservative countries that actually require these kinds of feminist movements. The irony here is that you devalue women by not recognizing their equality in the first place, and make them look like weak children that need help with your warped ideologies.
Like Kwark said, it's not because people have it worse elsewhere that we can't do more in favor of equality at home. According to your brilliant reasoning, people should not really have worried about women's right to vote at the time, because other women had it worse elsewhere in the world.
There is no such irony. Denouncing the gender roles which permeate our societies has absolutely nothing to do with making women "look like weak children". Everyone is affected by gender roles, women and men.
|
|
|
Women are given PLENTY of opportunities in the MODERN society to in the science fields.
^
Fun reads:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/21/national-push-women-sciences
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/400-million-will-help-science-and-engineering-students-get-ahead-in-the-global-race-and-encourage-more-women-to-study-these-subjects
However, simultaneously men are also being LIMITED in the science field.
^
Sources:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/
http://www.discriminations.us/2012/07/obama-moves-toward-quotas-limiting-men-in-science/
In a fair market, more women in science should happen spontaneously and organically and the stats shouldn't be manipulated artificially. Of course if more money are involved in bringing girls into the field and a quote of guys, there will be more of an 1:1 ratio b/w them.
This proves the system's bias advantage for women in the field.
Another point that we should note that women ARE capable of at least hang w/ the men in terms of STEM. You can read the official Canadian stats here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm.
Quote:
"Furthermore, women with a STEM degree were particularly concentrated in science and technology programs. Specifically, women accounted for 59% of graduates who had a university degree in science and technology, but accounted for 23% of graduates aged 25 to 34 with a university degree in engineering, and 30% of those with a degree in mathematics and computer science. Thus, 39% of the 132,500 women aged 25 to 34 who had a STEM degree had a background in engineering, mathematics or computer science (Chart 1).Note7 In comparison, 72% of the 206,600 STEM-educated men had a background in these fields (47% in engineering and 25% in mathematics and computer science)."
However men are MORE likely to go further and beyond in the field (such as getting masters and PhD). Men are much more likely to specialize and reach into a higher level of scientific understanding.
Is it because there aren't ENOUGH women in the country that are in university for STEM? No ("women accounted for 59% of graduates who had a university degree in science and technology"). Naturally speaking, females aren't that eager in reaching into higher research capacities ( In comparison, 72% of the 206,600 STEM-educated men had a background in these fields [graduates] ).
|
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +Did you perhaps miss the part where we are not in the stone age anymore? Why should women not being as physically strong as men on average have any relevance to their proportions in occupying positions of power in today's societies? Artificial power through laws and technologies. Current human society is no better than a zoo. If WW3 happens and everything get resets to stone age. What do you think is going to happen? Physical strength(biology) is the root of this. Women only have power because Men give them power. REAL POWER IS SOMETHING YOU TAKE, NOT GIVEN.
You seem to be a big fan of the stone age. Damn those laws and technologies! There's not much to say here, except that we do not live in the stone age, so there's no reason to have the principles which governed human behavior during the stone age apply to us now. This is such an amazingly obvious statement that I'm baffled I'm even having to argue this point.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +
You do realize that focusing on populations exhibiting cultural traits different from ours in terms of gender roles was your own thought experiment, right? You made that suggestion to assess the influence of culture. I guess you weren't expecting that such studies had actually already been done and that they had proven the role of culture. I'm sorry you shot yourself in the foot there - your own thought experiment proved you wrong. Ouch.
Yes, the world empires you mention were led by men, notably because of how gender roles were defined in the cultures in which they emerged. Nazi Germany was also led by men. What does that tell us about the abilities of women and what the place of women in our societies should be? Nothing.
It tell you that societies that you mention are useless because they havn't done anything comparable to the world empires. They exist, but so what? They arn't successful. Who do you want to tutor you on the next test, the guy who got an D on the past test or a guy who got an A. When Men act like men and women act like women, everything works.
I don't think you could be more confused about the argument if you tried. We were not talking about small matriarchal/egalitarian societies to compare them to world empires in terms of power. You brought up the idea of studying small egalitarian societies because, as you said yourself - and I quote your own post: "The only way to settle this debate is to artificially create an island full of population where gender roles are not defined or reversed and see what happens. [...] If men starts acting like stereotypical men and women start acting like stereotypical women. Then I am correct in believing that biology plays more role than culture. If the reverse is true, then you are right."
Turns out "the reverse is true" - the studies I mentioned showed that men and women scored equally in several cognitive tests in egalitarian societies, while men had an advantage over women in those tests in patriarchal societies. You were wrong. Too bad.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +With respect to poker and chess, there are proportionally more men at the top because of cultural and mathematical factors. Culturally, women are not as encouraged to play chess as men, and expectations regarding their results are lower, which participates in them not being as interested/not putting as much effort/not believing in their capabilities. Mathematically, there are simply less women actually engaging fully in these activities (because of the initial cultural filter), which makes it expected that men end up at the top. So women suck at chess and poker not because they actually suck. They suck because people don't encourage them enough and because culture don't expect them to be successful so that's why they don't try. What a horseshit theory. If someone tells me shit like that and I am super talented I would want to prove everyone wrong. Damn, applying that logic to me, I could've invented IPOD and FACEBOOK and be rich except I didn't try. If women can't overcome that pathetic mental block then that proved that they are cognitively inferior to men. Pretty sure someone told the wright brother that they can't fly like birds. Someone probably told Roger Bannister that he can't break the 4 minutes mile mark. They both did it and defy expectations. You assume as if no man has to deal with something like that before throughout history. If men can do it then why can't women do it? Why do we have to set up conditions for them in order for them to be successful? Why can't they just do it all by themselves. Why do women need men to babysit them and give them rights?
It's not about women, men or gender: individuals perform less effectively at given tasks when they have internalized a belief about not being good at that task. If they belong to a group and believe that this group is not good at a particular exercise, they will statistically perform less well at the exercise than if they did not believe that. Psychologists have referred to this as "stereotype threat". It impacts both men and women (and humans in general, regardless of the divide taken into account), and is well documented by scientific research. See for example Angelica Moè, Francesca Pazzaglia (2006), "Following the instructions!: Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation", Learning and Individual Differences (Journal of Psychology and Education), Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 375:
Taken together, the data suggest that individual differences in beliefs and in motivational aspects are able to affect MRT performance and the generally observed gender differences. As expected, women talked to be more able than men improved their performance after this manipulation, whilst when talked to be less able they showed a significant decrease. Men told to be more able than women outperformed them, while those expecting to be less able fell in MRT performance after the manipulation. No difference between the pre- and post-experimental manipulation administration of the MRT was observed for participants receiving no manipulation of expectations.
This effect shows that, regardless of gender, a subject increases performance when gender superiority is stressed and reduces it when opposite gender superiority is suggested by instructions.
This has, of course, nothing to do with saying that an individual is capable of absolutely anything simply because he believes it. Again, pay attention and/or stop using strawmen.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +One reason is that humans are not fully rational and devoid of biases, in particular gender biases. If you had read the construction job article I linked to in my previous post, for example, you would have seen that the two female interns working on a construction site were immediately chosen by their male bosses to oversee minor tasks, while the two male interns were directly chosen to oversee major aspects of the construction site. This choice was made without any attention given to their respective resume and abilities. Another reason is that the gender roles integrated by women lead them proportionally to different career choices than men.
And yes, women being underrepresented in positions of power is problematic, because there is no actual reason for them to be underrepresented, and they suffer from that underrepresentation. There is actual reason, they are not good enough in general. Stop blaming society. People don't expect anything from them because they are not good enough. Women are best at supporting roles, taking care of kids and elderly and keeping their men happy. It's a role that they played for million of years. If they want to prove that they are equal, they are going to have to outperform men in activities and sports. Now, if they have done that. Then I would gladly concede my argument. But from what I see in the real world. Men are still on top. This is like saying that SC2 esport is discriminatory because foreigners are underrepresented.
You are again spouting your sexist claims with nothing to back them up. You've been proven wrong again and again. The differences you think exist between sexes are not rooted in biology but in your sexist imagination. The minor differences that do exist in biology do not imply what you say they imply, and their influence is overshadowed by cultural factors.
|
No, this proves attempts have been made at correcting the effects of structural gender cultural biases favoring men.
On April 05 2014 07:51 Xiphos wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Women and education] +Another point that we should note that women ARE capable of at least hang w/ the men in terms of STEM. You can read the official Canadian stats here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm. Quote: "Furthermore, women with a STEM degree were particularly concentrated in science and technology programs. Specifically, women accounted for 59% of graduates who had a university degree in science and technology, but accounted for 23% of graduates aged 25 to 34 with a university degree in engineering, and 30% of those with a degree in mathematics and computer science. Thus, 39% of the 132,500 women aged 25 to 34 who had a STEM degree had a background in engineering, mathematics or computer science (Chart 1).Note7 In comparison, 72% of the 206,600 STEM-educated men had a background in these fields (47% in engineering and 25% in mathematics and computer science)." However men are MORE likely to go further and beyond in the field (such as getting masters and PhD). Men are much more likely to specialize and reach into a higher level of scientific understanding. Is it because there aren't ENOUGH women in the country that are in university for STEM? No ("women accounted for 59% of graduates who had a university degree in science and technology"). Naturally speaking, females aren't that eager in reaching into higher research capacities ( In comparison, 72% of the 206,600 STEM-educated men had a background in these fields [graduates] ).
Yes, and the point is that they aren't as eager not because their genetic makeup tells them that maths = le bad, but because of cultural factors pertaining to various aspects of the roles of women (in terms of job paths to follow, of the taking care of children, of gender areas of interests, etc.).
|
|
|
On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +
The discrimination they are facing was mentioned earlier in the discussion, as were the gender roles which lead them to less-paying and more part-time jobs. Yes, it is a big deal, since they earn considerably less than men on average.
Women's unemployment rate is lower because women have proportionally more part-time, low-paying jobs (or jobs in sectors which were less affected by the recession but tend to pay less). See here. statistics can be interpreted in many different way. You say it's because of cultural expectation. I say it's due to biology which lead to that cultural expectation.
Well, we've argued all of this quite a bit already, so at this point we're going in circles - I don't have anything to add to what I've said previously.
On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote + You seem to be a big fan of the stone age. Damn those laws and technologies! There's not much to say here, except that we do not live in the stone age, so there's no reason to have the principles which governed human behavior during the stone age apply to us now. This is such an amazingly obvious statement that I'm baffled I'm even having to argue this point. Because it is unnatural. Female's general happiness level has been steady going down in relative to men for a reason. They are uncomfortable in their new roles.
I would have to read more on the issue to examine how those happiness levels were measured and whether other studies have looked at this/challenged this claim about female happiness going down, but Stevenson and Wolfer's 2009 study on the topic suggests several reasons which are not at all that women would be biologically less suited for the workplace. You don't seem to be basing your assertion on anything else than your preconceived beliefs.
On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +I don't think you could be more confused about the argument if you tried. We were not talking about small matriarchal/egalitarian societies to compare them to world empires in terms of power. You brought up the idea of studying small egalitarian societies because, as you said yourself - and I quote your own post: "The only way to settle this debate is to artificially create an island full of population where gender roles are not defined or reversed and see what happens. [...] If men starts acting like stereotypical men and women start acting like stereotypical women. Then I am correct in believing that biology plays more role than culture. If the reverse is true, then you are right."
Turns out "the reverse is true" - the studies I mentioned showed that men and women scored equally in several cognitive tests in egalitarian societies, while men had an advantage over women in those tests in patriarchal societies. You were wrong. Too bad. I'll give you point for this one. Show nested quote +It's not about women, men or gender: individuals perform less effectively at given tasks when they have internalized a belief about not being good at that task. If they belong to a group and believe that this group is not good at a particular exercise, they will statistically perform less well at the exercise than if they did not believe that. Psychologists have referred to this as "stereotype threat". It impacts both men and women (and humans in general, regardless of the divide taken into account), and is well documented by scientific research. See for example Angelica Moè, Francesca Pazzaglia (2006), "Following the instructions!: Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation", Learning and Individual Differences (Journal of Psychology and Education), Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 375: It seems like you are onto something. A naturalistic study of stereotype threat in young female chess players. http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/79.abstractShow nested quote + You are again spouting your sexist claims with nothing to back them up. You've been proven wrong again and again. The differences you think exist between sexes are not rooted in biology but in your sexist imagination. The minor differences that do exist in biology do not imply what you say they imply, and their influence is overshadowed by cultural factors. I still think that men are still better than women because we are stronger. But given these evidences you've shown me. Perhaps it's true that women are as capable as men in term of cognitive ability given the right environment. I will now take a break from this thread. thanks for the debate. I learned something new.
I must say I'm positively surprised by these last comments. Thanks for taking the time to look into what I was presenting you with. I obviously completely disagree that men being physically stronger than women on average implies that they are "better" than women on a general level in any way, shape, or form, but I appreciate your response to my arguments on cognitive abilities. Cheers.
|
On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:
I still think that men are still better than women because we are stronger.
how are you not embarrassed to post something like this
it's like calling yourself an idiot
|
On April 05 2014 11:19 cam connor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:
I still think that men are still better than women because we are stronger. how are you not embarrassed to post something like this it's like calling yourself an idiot
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe 
|
On April 05 2014 12:36 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 11:19 cam connor wrote:On April 05 2014 10:17 Jumperer wrote:
I still think that men are still better than women because we are stronger. how are you not embarrassed to post something like this it's like calling yourself an idiot "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe
"Girls don't like big pecs! they like money and "this"!(as he indicates with his hand mid thigh on the leg)" - Mark Rippetoe
|
I usually avoid feminism threads on TL because it saddens me to see how commonplace sexism still is even among internet-literates smart enough to at least pretend to be interested in esports. But it's encouraging to see people jumping hard on Jumperer, even if its only because all the casual sexists have already checked out of the thread.
Jumperer: Might makes right is not an argument that will get you very far in life. I know there are philosophical schools that believe it... but no one likes them. You don't make a lot of friends by speaking praises of the Will to Power or Atlas Shrugged. Most folks in our society are governed by some version of the Hebrew monotheist ethical system, where you "do unto other as you would want them to do unto you." Sure, some disagreement exists between those who prefer an active rule of that form, and those who prefer a passive version (don't be a dick), and others add a few ritual prohibitions (usually on diet or sexual activity) but the principle is the same.
In such a worldview, you cannot say that it's "fair" for societies to be patriarchal and deny various rights (explicitly or implicitly) to women. And if you do not share this worldview, then you need to back up and try to convince everyone that we must regress to our animal natures, unhindered by developed systems of morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
