Check out this series of documentaries about misandry (hatred of men) and feminism. I found it a while back and I found it rather interesting, and quite controversial (but I guess that many of the good documentaries are).
Here is the introduction:
Watch the rest of the videos here: http://www.manwomanmyth.com/video/ (I think they will be the most enjoyable for you if you watch them in the right order.)
Anyway, I just wanted to share those with you. I thought that maybe you would find them enjoyable and though-provoking to watch. Not many people have seen them so far it seems.
For anyone who is interested, this is a great new show - I would seriously recommend watching it. The female lead is assertive and authoritative and demanding of attention and respect.
A Sexist Reporter Tried To Box Her In, But She Took Everything And Threw It Right Back In His Face
The show "Scandal" is full of pioneering moments for strong female characters on television, exemplified by this truly kick-ass response from Lisa Kudrow's character, Congresswoman Josephine Marcus, to a reporter who tried to ... well, just take a look and get ready to high-five someone.
That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
On November 15 2013 23:28 ayaz2810 wrote: When has a discussion about feminism on TL ever turned out to be a good thing? Answer: Never. Although I do really enjoy documentaries
I would say almost all threads about gender issues I've followed on TL have been fairly good.
Oh my this has been really enlightening, I've always suspected that all those "hordes" of female CEO's, Senators, Presidents and Governors were plotting the downfall of man. Good thing there ain't a bunch of guys acting like weirdo's that make the rest of us look bad in the media......."Rolls eyes"
I think some of these videos are fairly interesting. Acknowledging that there are gender specific issues and gender inequalities for men is quite important. But then other videos just seem to trivialize woman specific problems without much justification, like it is some sort of weird battle for which sex is best.
On November 15 2013 23:28 ayaz2810 wrote: When has a discussion about feminism on TL ever turned out to be a good thing? Answer: Never. Although I do really enjoy documentaries
I would say almost all threads about gender issues I've followed on TL have been fairly good.
You must have not ventured into the discussion about transgendered folks....
On November 15 2013 23:28 ayaz2810 wrote: When has a discussion about feminism on TL ever turned out to be a good thing? Answer: Never. Although I do really enjoy documentaries
I would say almost all threads about gender issues I've followed on TL have been fairly good.
You must have not ventured into the discussion about transgendered folks....
I did in several seperate threads. They were depressing at times, but also often quite interesting. And the existence of people with terrible opinions doesn't necessarily make a thread worse, can be quite fun too.
This video by the same guy reminds me exactly of the "racial realists" or "homo-realists" who claim to love gay/non-white people so much they have to be truthful with them by informing them of their sinful lives or inferiority. This video also uses a very similar formula to the "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theorists.
This is the most hilariously shit video I've seen all week. I'll never hide the fact that I have a lot of issues with some contemporary feminists and I almost reject the entirety of our generation's "identity politic", but the irony of combating what one considers to be a "myth" with a mythology of one's own is beyond vulgarity. It's just sad.
On November 16 2013 07:52 koreasilver wrote: This is the most hilariously shit video I've seen all week. I'll never hide the fact that I have a lot of issues with some contemporary feminists and I almost reject the entirety of our generation's "identity politic", but the irony of combating what one considers to be a "myth" with a mythology of one's own is beyond vulgarity. It's just sad.
Having watched quite a few of his videos by now, I have to agree. All of the people he interviews have genuinely interesting points, are quite articulate, intelligent and seem to have quite balanced opinions. But he adds a narration of his own that is just very far removed from reality, placing alot of weight on single incidents, anecdotal evidence and some statistics I can't find anywhere else. I feel quite bad for the people in his videos really. The men's rights movements seem to be quite poisoned by this kind of shit, which is quite sad really.
Im a feminist :o. Allowing women to be CEO's is probably worse for women overall, and imo it is anti feminist. It's like allowing a black guy to be president. Did Barrack Obama help black people overall or did he harm them?
On November 16 2013 09:19 stroggozzz wrote: Im a feminist :o. Allowing women to be CEO's is probably worse for women overall, and imo it is anti feminist. It's like allowing a black guy to be president. Did Barrack Obama help black people overall or did he harm them?
I'm assuming this is a joke. But even so I have to ask, when was it ever about allowing women to be CEOs?
Conspiracy theories and arguments driven almost single-handedly by logical fallacies, this looks more like propaganda for gullible idiots than anything.
On November 16 2013 09:19 stroggozzz wrote: Im a feminist :o. Allowing women to be CEO's is probably worse for women overall, and imo it is anti feminist. It's like allowing a black guy to be president. Did Barrack Obama help black people overall or did he harm them?
I'm assuming this is a joke. But even so I have to ask, when was it ever about allowing women to be CEOs?
Always, unless you think anti-discrimination laws are not exactly the same thing.
On November 16 2013 09:19 stroggozzz wrote: Im a feminist :o. Allowing women to be CEO's is probably worse for women overall, and imo it is anti feminist. It's like allowing a black guy to be president. Did Barrack Obama help black people overall or did he harm them?
I'm assuming this is a joke. But even so I have to ask, when was it ever about allowing women to be CEOs?
well it's about women trying to win over their rights, 'allowing' was the wrong word. But there are certain rights they win over far more easily than other ones which are much better for women. Like raising children was pretty much a full time job for my mum but she never get paid for it. That is imo far better for women than winning over the right to become a CEO or attain a powerful position in the workplace. One of the major political parties in my own government pledges to make 50% of their party women, for example. But that's hardly going to change the life of the majority of women in the country imo. The same party still locks up huge amounts of moari in jail for cannibas posession, but they think having a huge amount of moari in their party is going to solve that problem when it doesn't.
Maybe im totally wrong here. I got a pretty superficial understanding of feminism tbh, most of my of what i think is just from talking to my mum lol.
I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories, and it makes the assumption that the categories should add up to the same, despite the fact that there might be complex explanations to why they don't. Feminism contradicts equality completely, because equality doesn't allow you to make any assumptions, as you only look at facts. Feminism sees you as part of a category, rather than an individual. To them "equality" is men vs women, rather than individual vs individual. To illustrate what I mean. Let's assume that a women doesn't get a certain job, because the employer is a sexist bastard, and a guy who was not as suitable for the job ended up getting it instead. According to feminists you fix this problem by forcing a company to hire a woman at the expense of a man. To them, you can make things right by screwing with someone from the other gender, and maintaining the balance between the genders. To them, 1-1 equals 0. But if you don't categorize, it would rather be 1+1 equals 2, where 1 woman was screwed over by a sexist employer, and 1 man was screwed over by a policy. Feminists doesn't care about specific injustices in the same category, or specific injustices between them. They just want each category to add up to the same. Well, most of them will say that they care about general injustices as well, but that goes against all logic as the core of feminism is about categorizing and evening out the categories, something you cannot do without screwing ppl over, by for instance disqualifying them from applying certain jobs, purely based on their gender.
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. This includes (for most modern feminists) discrimination against LGBT.
Feminism is a pretty complex and rapidly changing movement. For instance, the earliest feminists were almost all pro-life. Nowadays the movement is almost entirely pro-choice (for better or for worse). If you look at some feminist writings from the 80s some of them are pretty anti-transgender, whereas the overwhelming trend lately is pro-transgender. Feminism in the 70s saw sex based media as almost exclusively derogatory and exploitative, whereas most modern-day feminists take almost the opposite opinion. (With some notable exceptions--Anita Sarkeesian takes an unusually negative view on sex for 2013--and generally has a few stances that are straight out of 1980s feminism; most feminists I know have several critiques of her stances, even if they're simultaneously glad that she's brought some issues to the spotlight).
But the point is, before you make a claim of "feminism excludes group X, or hasn't considered aspect Y"--bear in mind that it actually probably has thought about group X and considered aspect Y. There are people who spend their lives studying this kind of stuff--somewhere some professor of philosophy and gender studies has probably considered exactly the same thing you did, analyzed it from more angles than you did, maybe even did some sociological research, and then published a paper on the subject.
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories, and it makes the assumption that the categories should add up to the same, despite the fact that there might be complex explanations to why they don't. Feminism contradicts equality completely, because equality doesn't allow you to make any assumptions, as you only look at facts. Feminism sees you as part of a category, rather than an individual. To them "equality" is men vs women, rather than individual vs individual. To illustrate what I mean. Let's assume that a women doesn't get a certain job, because the employer is a sexist bastard, and a guy who was not as suitable for the job ended up getting it instead. According to feminists you fix this problem by forcing a company to hire a woman at the expense of a man. To them, you can make things right by screwing with someone from the other gender, and maintaining the balance between the genders. To them, 1-1 equals 0. But if you don't categorize, it would rather be 1+1 equals 2, where 1 woman was screwed over by a sexist employer, and 1 man was screwed over by a policy. Feminists doesn't care about specific injustices in the same category, or specific injustices between them. They just want each category to add up to the same. Well, most of them will say that they care about general injustices as well, but that goes against all logic as the core of feminism is about categorizing and evening out the categories, something you cannot do without screwing ppl over, by for instance disqualifying them from applying certain jobs, purely based on their gender.
You know, thats not what feminism is at all. But hey, I bet it's way easier to make feminism look bad if you just make up shit about it
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men.
Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it.
We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today.
With the whole "feminist" movement or whatever you want to call it there are a lot of people who try and use it for something its not. You see it in almost any "movement" really. There's always some wolves in sheep's clothing who will use it to push their own agenda. It's not entirely fair to say that a portion of the feminist movement is a bunch of shitty idiots and as such write off everything though. Yes, those people do exist but if you use those people to discredit everything that's a bit retarded.
There are some who will use the term feminist or feminism to describe themselves or their ideology that is clearly nothing more than just hatred of men. There are those who want "equality" in this or that scenario who when you bring up a scenario where men actually get the short end of the stick in society they'll laugh, or say "good!". Those people are either complete dipshits incapable of having a valid discussion or they've got a seething hatred for men, maybe both. Those kind of people you just have to poke fun at and cut them from the discussion or your life, you'll never get anywhere trying to deal with them.
There are also some in the feminist movement who do understand that sometimes women get the shaft in life and sometimes men get the shaft as well through nothing else than the fact that they're one gender or another in a certain situation. Once you realize that there are inconsistencies in treatment on both sides then you can actually try and fix them, on both sides, together! Shock and horror.
Certainly there are some things that are impossible to remedy as humans. Being born with different physiologies and all that entails. But as it sits there's things that can be fixed on both sides of the coin to make it better for everyone. Trying to paint an entire group with a broad brush and dismiss them all for the sins of some of their members is foolish. Doing so actually makes you no better than that sect within feminism that would write off all men because some of them are assbags. To make any progress people in both camps need to call out the shitheads within their own party for being worthless to any discussion or advancement. They're dead weight that takes everyone down with them and until they're thrown overboard I fear things aren't going to go anywhere fast.
The modern face of feminism has lost all its glitter for sexless equality advancement. I really doubt that any open-minded individual residing apart from academia can hold to that description for long. The Jezebel and Salon types have it by the horns now.
I don't think feminist activists are at all concerned with the struggles of men, from what I understand even bringing up the fact men are disadvantaged in some aspects is seen as attempts by misogynists to detract from the only real issue which supposedly is the oppression of women. At the same time the men's rights movement is also poisoned by people who are against a woman's right to vote etc.
And people who get really pissed off when women get some attention in sports:
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. This includes (for most modern feminists) discrimination against LGBT.
Feminism is a pretty complex and rapidly changing movement. For instance, the earliest feminists were almost all pro-life. Nowadays the movement is almost entirely pro-choice (for better or for worse). If you look at some feminist writings from the 80s some of them are pretty anti-transgender, whereas the overwhelming trend lately is pro-transgender. Feminism in the 70s saw sex based media as almost exclusively derogatory and exploitative, whereas most modern-day feminists take almost the opposite opinion. (With some notable exceptions--Anita Sarkeesian takes an unusually negative view on sex for 2013--and generally has a few stances that are straight out of 1980s feminism; most feminists I know have several critiques of her stances, even if they're simultaneously glad that she's brought some issues to the spotlight).
But the point is, before you make a claim of "feminism excludes group X, or hasn't considered aspect Y"--bear in mind that it actually probably has thought about group X and considered aspect Y. There are people who spend their lives studying this kind of stuff--somewhere some professor of philosophy and gender studies has probably considered exactly the same thing you did, analyzed it from more angles than you did, maybe even did some sociological research, and then published a paper on the subject.
I know that all feminists are not bad, but those who actually have good views, don't really subscribe to what feminism really is, and yet they call themselves feminists. They like what it stands for, but they don't really try to analyze what the feminists who have power (politicians) actually do. This is the danger. The feminists who are in power, they sugar-coat their views, and most ppl don't know what they're actually supporting, when they're voting on a feminist.
I think sexism is a real problem in this world, but using mathematics to solve it is not the answer at all, it just makes things worse. You can't fix a labeling problem by labeling even more. If we are to advance as a society, we need to stop putting labels on ppl, and we need to stop comparing different labels with eachother. If a woman doesn't get a certain job, simply because she's a woman, feminism is not the answer. Feminism is mathematics. They see this injustice as a statistic, and their answer is to steal a similar job from another man and give it to another woman. Equality is the real answer to all injustices related to gender, sexuality, creed or whatever. Why? Because equality doesn't assume anything. It doesn't assume that men and women generally are equal, which is another flaw in feminism. They claim a lot of things, without being able to prove it. To equality, the only thing that matters is whether the two persons in question are equals. Feminism is applied in politics, by telling us how to run our businesses, etc, while equality is applied in the justice system, on a case-to-case basis. A true believer in equality would never support a system that tells companies that they must hire a person under a specific label. It just goes against all that equality stands for. That's why it's strange to hear feminists say that they believe in equality.
In Sweden, one example of the work of feminism is to make music festivals "equal". They really like to hijack the word equality. Basically a feminist organization have pushed festival organizers towards deliberately signing 50% female and 50% male artists. And to show you how mainstream this organization is, the party leader of the 3rd largest political party in Sweden have openly supported this. And he's a guy btw, which makes it even worse. I could understand if a woman pushed a feminist agenda a bit overboard, for selfish or emotional reasons, but when you examine the actions of a influential male feminist, it says a lot about where feminism is today.
The organizers have lost money while doing this, compared to prior years, because as there's more competition among male artists and bands, the female bands and artists are generally not as desperate to get a gig, and thus more expensive, and they also attract less ppl, as they're simply not as good, not because men are better than women at creating music, but because men just happens to be dominating the live music industry. Feminists can't accept this fact. Instead they claim that the organizers are deliberately favouring male musicians, which is ridiculous, as these organizers operate from a market perspective. These organizers who have accepted it is clearly shooting themselves in the foot, and they will realize it soon enough, but the damage has already been done, in the form of a large number of musicians not getting the chance for exposure that they deserved, simply because of a feminist agenda. Some festival organizers also went bankrupt, or was forced to cancel, because they didn't sell enough tickets.
Madonna once said "I'm not a feminist, but I'm a humanist." and I think that's a very wise statement. Humanism incorporates all the good things about fairness and equality that the feminists claim to believe in, and without all the invalid assumptions, and questionable ways to operate, and on top of that it's so much more than that, as it also includes things like fairness between different culture groups, classes, and fairness among ppl of the same gender. When you're a humanist, there's no reason to put such a flawed label as feminism on yourself. I believe that ppl fall for feminism because it's easier to grasp, and ppl like putting labels on themselves in order to fit it. But if you stop and think about it, you see the flaws in it.
Anyway. I see a few ppl here who have tried defending feminism, saying that there is good feminism too. But neither of you seem to be able to show any example of this. Show me an example of how feminism leads to more justice in this world. I have mentioned a ton of example of how feminism leads to injustice, but I haven't seen any example of the opposite. I believe that feminism started out as a good movement, but the problem is that they are trying to fix a very complex problem by simplistic political means, which doesn't even adress the core issue, and creates a lot of injustices on top of that.
Yes, there are people who overdo it. Yes, there are people who make ridiculous claims. And yes, there are people demanding stupid things in the name of fairness. And, yes, these people exist in all areas. Feminism. Men's rights. Starcraft fans. Whatever.
But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid.
Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion.
Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid.
On November 17 2013 23:41 Conti wrote: Yes, there are people who overdo it. Yes, there are people who make ridiculous claims. And yes, there are people demanding stupid things in the name of fairness. And, yes, these people exist in all areas. Feminism. Men's rights. Starcraft fans. Whatever.
But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid.
Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion.
Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid.
I don't think anyone would object to feminism as you have defined it. However, I think the problem is that the definition you include does not accurately fit the reality of what feminism is fighting for.
The number 1 cause (my observation alone) of feminism is the establishement of quotas for companies and governments. Companies should be forced to hire some proportion of women in top positions. The justification is that companies and government apparently prefer to hire men. The explanation can't possibly be that there are more qualified men available, because such a thought is deeply sexist.
The second biggest cause is reducing the wage gap, women get paid less on average, and that is wrong. The justification for this is that this is a patriarchical society, where women are denied equal opportunities either through semi-conscious male conspiracies, or through unconscious biases that are the result of our culture telling us that women are less capable.
I feel these justifications are very flimsy. There is no apparent economic explanation for how these situations could possibly exist. A business that overpays men for doing the same job would surely go out of business when met with competition from businesses that hire cheaper women. In such a situation pressure on the price of labor from women would surely lead to wages being equalized in equilibrium. In the same vein, companies that prefer to hire underqualified men over qualified women would go out of business when met with competition from businesses that take advantage of the abundant supply of qualified women.
Clearly there must be some other explanations for the wage gap and for the under-representation of women in top positions. And these explanations are rather obvious. Women are absent more often, take more maternity leave and are less likely to have time to work overtime. Women may simply have different priorities. Equal opportunities for the sexes afterall does not mean that there are no differences between the genders. and surely that isn't a problem. It is dishonest to say that women are paid less for doing the same job. They may be doing the same kind of work, but if they are working less on average, then on average they are not really supplying the same unit of work as their male counterparts.
Now I do think there are things that can be done to equalize the wage gap and the under-representation of women problem. But not in the form of quotas. For example men can be forced to take the same amount of paternity leave, and can be stimulated to spend an equal amount of resources on child-rearing. These efforts can never completely equalize however. The simple fact is that women must carry a child within their body, which surely must have some effect on productivity. And women are likely to always be more willing to devote resources to raising children, just as part of differences in biological makeup. Another problem with such an approach is that it is very presumptuous, why exactly is it that the current situation is less desirable? Why is it bad that men and women prefer to sepnd their resources in different ways, if both have the opportunity to go for any kind of balance they desire?
I do also think that there is some cultural element that can have an effect on our perception of gender differences. You only need to look at works of fiction. It is very easy to notice that in fiction in the overwhelming majority of cases, the main protagonist is a man, and owmen serve as love-interest for him, are damsels in distress or serve as a device for the man to do shit in some other way. As a rule ,women support the true heroes of the story, a man. But it is hard to say if this difference in portrayal is shaping society, or if it is simply an accurate portrayal of society. The truth is obviously somewhere in between, but where exactly?
Another problem is that feminism completely ignores areas in which women have a clear advantage. On the low-income side of the economy men often work in physically demanding and more dangerous jobs. Women can get entry level jobs in the safe and comfortable service industry very easily, the same is not true for men. Men generally are not trusted to work around children, and are also hessitant to do so out of fear of being suspected of being a pedophile. It is quite likely that mentioning these facts will lead to some harsh words from a feminist.
On November 17 2013 23:41 Conti wrote: Yes, there are people who overdo it. Yes, there are people who make ridiculous claims. And yes, there are people demanding stupid things in the name of fairness. And, yes, these people exist in all areas. Feminism. Men's rights. Starcraft fans. Whatever.
But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid.
Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion.
Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid.
I don't think anyone would object to feminism as you have defined it. However, I think the problem is that the definition you include does not accurately fit the reality of what feminism is fighting for.
I can only repeat myself here. You are pointing out specific issues that may or may not be agreeable, and then declare that these issues are what defines feminism. I'll happily have a discussion about the specific issues, but it's simply flat out wrong to define these issues as "feminism" and thus oppose feminism in general.
Heck, we cannot say that "feminism" is fighting for anything. Feminism is an abstract concept, not a concrete implementation of demands. And, again, the abstract concept is inherently good. The concrete implementations may or may not be.
I agree that the 50% rule can be pretty stupid at times. It can also make perfect sense, depending on where it is applied. But implying that the most extreme examples you can find that are done in the name of feminism are what defines feminism is just wrong.
On November 17 2013 23:41 Conti wrote: Yes, there are people who overdo it. Yes, there are people who make ridiculous claims. And yes, there are people demanding stupid things in the name of fairness. And, yes, these people exist in all areas. Feminism. Men's rights. Starcraft fans. Whatever.
But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid.
Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion.
Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid.
I don't think anyone would object to feminism as you have defined it. However, I think the problem is that the definition you include does not accurately fit the reality of what feminism is fighting for.
I can only repeat myself here. You are pointing out specific issues that may or may not be agreeable, and then declare that these issues are what defines feminism. I'll happily have a discussion about the specific issues, but it's simply flat out wrong to define these issues as "feminism" and thus oppose feminism in general.
Heck, we cannot say that "feminism" is fighting for anything. Feminism is an abstract concept, not a concrete implementation of demands. And, again, the abstract concept is inherently good. The concrete implementations may or may not be.
I agree that the 50% rule can be pretty stupid at times. It can also make perfect sense, depending on where it is applied. But implying that the most extreme examples you can find that are done in the name of feminism are what defines feminism is just wrong.
I do not judge feminism on what it ideally should be, but rather on what it tends to do in practice. To me this seems like a reasonable way to make judgements in life. I do think women's gender based-disadvantages should be combatted, but I am hessitant to describe myself as a feminist, because of the average activist.
Making judgements based only on whether or not something is ''inherently'' good or bad, just isn't a workable system in my opinion.
Hm well, feminist ideas as to gender role designations influenced the Swedish system of relatively equivalent shared parental leave.
Meanwhile in this country, I got 2 weeks leave from work and was back at the grind, and though we're together my partner gets all the tax credits and child benefits etc.
Because women are meant to be more caring, and regardless of the individual's involved by default the primary carer.
On November 16 2013 11:47 Shiragaku wrote: You would think that gamers would actually learn not to make lazy slanderous statements after Jack Thompson's crusade against video games.
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote:
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men.
Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it.
We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today.
Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't.
On November 16 2013 11:47 Shiragaku wrote: You would think that gamers would actually learn not to make lazy slanderous statements after Jack Thompson's crusade against video games.
Why would they take after his moral teachings?
I was stating that gamers should learn from his legacy of not lying like a complete jackass about a group of people without doing research and attaching the label of the group they dislike to a tragedy, be it big or small.
For example, Jack Thompson blamed video games whenever a school shooting happened. Similarly, I have seen the internet community blame feminism for this and for this And we even had The Amazing Atheist compare feminism to the KKK and judging from the reception he got, much of the internet community seems to accept his ideas.
Almost every single critique of feminism I have seen on the internet, even on TL has been completely incorrect and uses irrelevant comparisons just like Jack Thompson's critique of video games. And I did even touch on the issue of gaming and sexism which seems to blow up in a shitstorm whenever it is brought it.
In fact, because I have heard feminism compared enough to Nazis, KKK, fascism, and everything bad, I think this quote becoming similar to how many people use the word feminism these days. The biggest difference in my opinion is that feminism has no historical roots to fascism, and if anything, tended to get their asses kicked by fascists.
the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote:
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men.
Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it.
We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today.
Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't.
I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression.
By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy.
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote:
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men.
Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it.
We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today.
Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't.
I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression.
By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy.
Honestly, I think you simply mix up radical feminism with feminism, and define every radical feminist you see as a typical feminist, while you define every feminist you see as, well, normal.
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote:
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories
That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men.
Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it.
We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today.
Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't.
I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression.
By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy.
Honestly, I think you simply mix up radical feminism with feminism, and define every radical feminist you see as a typical feminist, while you define every feminist you see as, well, normal.
No I think it you who is confused. Radical feminists actively seek female dominance, neutralizing the threat of men to women to vaying extents, from institutionalized matriarchy to replace thepatriarchy to the complete extermination of all men. Obviously these views are not representative of feminism as a whole.
This is why I have purposefully chosen viewpoints that are very moderate and very relevant. All of the stances I have mentioned in this thread are on the political agendas of mainstream parties throughout the western world.
And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote: And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
I think at the crux of the issue it's a poisonous term to many people. You can see this in blind tests, asking somebody if they identify/agree with feminism, and ask them their stances on specific issues and there's quite a bit of discrepancy.
I remember something in the States was done in a similar vein. People were asked of they were 'conservative' or 'liberal' (itself a missused term IMO) and what they identified as and what their stances were on particular issues reflecting each overarching philosophy (by and large), and there was often fuck all correlation.
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote: And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Yes sure?
You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is.
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote: And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Because the ideal and the followers are two different pairs of shoes?!
On November 18 2013 21:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Then why IS feminism so grossly misunderstood?
I think at the crux of the issue it's a poisonous term to many people. You can see this in blind tests, asking somebody if they identify/agree with feminism, and ask them their stances on specific issues and there's quite a bit of discrepancy.
I remember something in the States was done in a similar vein. People were asked of they were 'conservative' or 'liberal' (itself a missused term IMO) and what they identified as and what their stances were on particular issues reflecting each overarching philosophy (by and large), and there was often fuck all correlation.
The term is only poisonous because of deliberate efforts to paint all feminists as irate. If people agree with all actual feminist positions but still refuse to call themselves feminists then what are they but cowards and idiots? In the united states it's now common to call yourself a progressive when before you were a liberal due to the right-wing assault on the word. Similarly, many men now brag about being an equalitarian or something like that instead of a feminist. Seems pretty pathetic to me...
Also, constantly trying to convince people to do something that they don't want to do might eventually result in them being accepting of your ideas, but will only sour them on you personally. (since people have their pride)
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote: And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Yes sure?
You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is.
I do not think my examples are bad, what other causes are there that feminism is fighting for in the present day? Abortion and military service are non-issues in much of europe. It actually seems pretty relevant to me that you can't think of anything except rights that have largely been acquired already.
My point is that about 7 different people insist on pointing out that feminism is only a good thing that nobody can object to, while blatantly ignoring the fact that active feminist agenda contains alot of viewpoints that are very far from unequivocally good. It just seems intellectually dishonest to me to insist that feminism is not what feminist do/want but rather only some abstract notion about equality.
I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
On November 18 2013 12:27 Wombat_NI wrote: Examples L1ghtning?
Hm well, feminist ideas as to gender role designations influenced the Swedish system of relatively equivalent shared parental leave.
Meanwhile in this country, I got 2 weeks leave from work and was back at the grind, and though we're together my partner gets all the tax credits and child benefits etc.
Because women are meant to be more caring, and regardless of the individual's involved by default the primary carer.
The swedish political system can be divided into 3 left wing parties and 5 right wing parties. Together, they are about equal in size, and it's the right wing that is currently in control. All the left wing parties are feminist. All the right wing parties reject feminist, but they believe in equality. The former swedish minister of equality was a woman, and she's not a feminist, as she's from one of the right wing parties. I haven't heard the current minister of equality make any statements about feminism, but most likely she's not, as she's from the same party as the former one.
Anyway, I think 2 of the 3 feminist parties wants to enforce a 50/50 even parental leave, while all the right wing parties are against it. They do support that some of it gets split, but they don't want to split all of it, and would rather leave it up to the families to decide on their own. Vote feminist, and you're forced to split all of the parental leave 50/50. Vote non-feminist and you split a portion of it, and then you get a portion of optional parental leave that you as a family can divide however you want. This means that the man could take 70% of the parental leave. Feminists thinks that this should always be 50/50, because in their world, equality is about numbers, and special circumstances doesn't exist. The non-feminists believe that both parents should be get a basic parental leave, but they want to give them the choice to decide about the rest.
This is not a question of equality, it's a question of having the right of choice as a family. The major feminist party was openly communist until 1990. It's not a surprise that they picked up feminism, as both ideologies likes to restrict the freedom of choice, and would rather tell us how to live our lives.
On November 18 2013 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote: I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
I think the term feminism is associated with advancing the position of women, and no longer has much association with striving for equality. I would say few people now think that women are facing very much insitutional oppression at all (could be wrong), and now the cause is simply statistical equality, and only in areas where on the surface this seems desirable for women, while ignoring areas in which men are getting a bad deal. Nobody is talking about having more female builders or plumbers, or more male daycare workers, but having more female CEOs seems top priority. Even though (atleasst on the surface) it would seem that having more female CEOs won't havve much of an effect at all.
I will grant that feminists also strive to fight sexual violence against women, but this is something we call agree on to such an extent that it hardly seems like a uniquely feminist stance. The same for the rights that have been acquired in the past, everyone agrees that women should have equal opportunities, that it hardly seems like a feminist stance anymore.
On November 18 2013 21:54 Wombat_NI wrote: I don't think it's the same as the States. At least here we don't have big media personalities who cannot even use the word socialism without sneering, on the rare occasions they actually use the term correctly.
I understand the concept of the malleability of language, but flagrant misuse of actual technical terms is ridiculous.
Don't forget that they think that Obama is the anti-christ.
I think you underestimate the negative reaction self-described feminists can do to those associated with the name, it's not just those who actively work to disparage feminism that do it.
You don't have to tell me how toxic for instance the feminist blogosphere can be (you'd find less hate on stormfront), but there is still a deliberate effort to highlight certain behaviors. There is, say, a pervading negative opinion of feminists and the only thing that's necessary is to find some suitable examples from time to time to throw fuel on the fire. I think a more unbiased, historical perspective would show that the effect of feminists on the world has been almost purely positive.
On November 18 2013 22:19 Crushinator wrote: I will grant that feminists also strive to fight sexual violence against women, but this is something we call agree on to such an extent that it hardly seems like a uniquely feminist stance. The same for the rights that have been acquired in the past, everyone agrees that women should have equal opportunities, that it hardly seems like a feminist stance anymore.
Yet if you say the word "rape culture" it magically summons anti-feminists to trivialize the issue.
On November 18 2013 21:30 Conti wrote: And you have never in your life seen an instance where the principle of equality for women has been applied in a sensible way? Like, say, the right to enter the army? Or the right to have an abortion? Not to mention everything to do with various non-western countries, which still very much are patriarchies. What about that? Is that not feminism, too?
Yes sure?
You argued that "feminism in practice" is only whatever bad examples you provided. I provided counterexamples to that. And you seem to agree that they are valid, so I'm really not sure what your point is.
I do not think my examples are bad, what other causes are there that feminism is fighting for in the present day? Abortion and military service are non-issues in much of europe. It actually seems pretty relevant to me that you can't think of anything except rights that have largely been acquired already.
My point is that about 7 different people insist on pointing out that feminism is only a good thing that nobody can object to, while blatantly ignoring the fact that active feminist agenda contains alot of viewpoints that are very far from unequivocally good. It just seems intellectually dishonest to me to insist that feminism is not what feminist do/want but rather only some abstract notion about equality.
In that case, I'm not one of those 7 people. Feminism as a principle is a good thing (and as far as I remember, you agreed with that). Feminism in practice depends on, well, whatever it is that happens in practice. But taking the most extreme examples one can find to discredit the basic idea behind a principle is a very common tactic, and it appeared you were doing just that.
I agree that people take it too far, and certain 50/50 rules are just not very useful. But you have to consider the history behind this. You don't even need to go back one generation to find blatant examples of sexism and inequality all over the world, and considering that, it makes sense to demand such rules. Again, I don't always agree with them, but I see where they're coming from.
Read the post by Wombat_NI. I really don't think your actual views on equality differ all that much from what your average feminist fights for, extreme examples and populist demands by politicians notwithstanding.
Feminism vs racism, now there's an interesting discussion. The former, a lot of people seem to be content with legislative equality, and a shift in cultural norms isn't expected, or actively rallied against. For the latter, racism is seen as something that legislative equality isn't enough to tackle, and cultural shifts are needed.
Notwithstanding other issues such as the great multiculturalism debate, do you see this vague idea as even vaguely correct, and why/why not?
I think the term rape culture is very vague and easily misunderstood, sadly. Just based on that I don't think denying the existence of rape culture makes a person anti-feminist. I definitely think there are cultural elements that contribute to the prevalence of rape. But this is quite a loose definition, and authors can definitely make it sound like it is much more pervasive and sinister than that.
On November 18 2013 22:30 Wombat_NI wrote: @Grumbels and Crushintor, largely agreed.
Feminism vs racism, now there's an interesting discussion. The former, a lot of people seem to be content with legislative equality, and a shift in cultural norms isn't expected, or actively rallied against. For the latter, racism is seen as something that legislative equality isn't enough to tackle, and cultural shifts are needed.
Notwithstanding other issues such as the great multiculturalism debate, do you see this vague idea as even vaguely correct, and why/why not?
I think the fact that people from different races/ethnicities usually also come form different socioeconomic backgrounds is part of the reason why quotas based on ethnicity are more difficult to justify. Men and women can be assumed to be distributed over the socioeconomic layers evenly, for obvious reasons.
(note I said socioeconomic background and not position)
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
You should watch popular entertainment from the 80's. A comedy show like Cheers, which is devoted mostly to gender issues, will constantly refer to discussions that were going on at the time about the role of women. It's one of my favorite shows, actually, but a lot of it seems very quaint. If you watch Frasier then there will be the running joke of mockery of Roz's "sluttiness" that would no longer be acceptable in a show today. There are a lot of cultural shifts.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Honestly, I think it simply boils down to us having very different associations with the word "feminism", and nothing more.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Honestly, I think it simply boils down to us having very different associations with the word "feminism", and nothing more.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
I'm sure that during the time of the civil rights movement you would be one of those people that would complain that it was focused too much on racism against black people when it should also be about racism against white people.
Also, obsessing about the "femin" in the word feminism and saying that you can't support it for that reason is the flimsiest rationale to not support something that I've ever heard. Women have historically been oppressed, feminism is a movement that seeks to address this. It's not some meaningless abstract "egalitarian" position, it's about addressing actual injustice.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
On November 16 2013 09:19 stroggozzz wrote: Im a feminist :o. Allowing women to be CEO's is probably worse for women overall, and imo it is anti feminist. It's like allowing a black guy to be president. Did Barrack Obama help black people overall or did he harm them?
I'm assuming this is a joke. But even so I have to ask, when was it ever about allowing women to be CEOs?
well it's about women trying to win over their rights, 'allowing' was the wrong word. But there are certain rights they win over far more easily than other ones which are much better for women. Like raising children was pretty much a full time job for my mum but she never get paid for it. That is imo far better for women than winning over the right to become a CEO or attain a powerful position in the workplace. One of the major political parties in my own government pledges to make 50% of their party women, for example. But that's hardly going to change the life of the majority of women in the country imo. The same party still locks up huge amounts of moari in jail for cannibas posession, but they think having a huge amount of moari in their party is going to solve that problem when it doesn't.
Maybe im totally wrong here. I got a pretty superficial understanding of feminism tbh, most of my of what i think is just from talking to my mum lol.
Err, your mother did get payed for it. Presumably by your dad, who bought the food she ate, the house she lived in, and the clothes she wore. That she didn't get paid a monthly wage is something very different from not getting paid at all.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
I'm sure that during the time of the civil rights movement you would be one of those people that would complain that it was focused too much on racism against black people when it should also be about racism against white people.
Also, obsessing about the "femin" in the word feminism and saying that you can't support it for that reason is the flimsiest rationale to not support something that I've ever heard. Women have historically been oppressed, feminism is a movement that seeks to address this. It's not some meaningless abstract "egalitarian" position, it's about addressing actual injustice.
I support many feminist causes, as should be evident from my posts in this thread. I take objection to your assertion that I would be a racist during the civil rights movement. You have no basis for this suspicion and it is nothing more than an ad hominem.
I do not obsess over the word femin, it is simply reality that feminism historically and presently is not very much concerned with the welfare of men. Perhaps understandibly so in the past, but In the present day not so much in my opinion. And I do agree that it should be about adressing actual injustice, and not abstractions, which is why i have examined relevant concrete feminist proposals in my writings here.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Who holds positions of power in society, men or women? Why?
Answer those questions, and you will realize what I'm talking about.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Who holds positions of power in society, men or women? Why?
Answer those questions, and you will realize what I'm talking about.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible.
Edit: Oh and my intentionwas to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible. Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes.
On November 18 2013 22:53 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible. Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes.
I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist.
On November 18 2013 23:01 yamato77 wrote: [quote] Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible. Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes.
I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist.
I talk to feminists everyday and we talk about these kinds of issues every day. Our group is very diverse in ideology, but ALL of us acknowledge that men are disenfranchised as well. However, many men and women will tend to have different problems for obvious reasons.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Wrong. If you actually examined the policies that political feminism have lead to, and what they're currently proposing, you can see that they've only got one answer, and that is to label the entire world population into two categories, and then even out the books. If you want men and women to earn as much on average, and if you want all the occupations to be evenly spread among men and women, then you're a feminist, but this has nothing to do with ppl being treated equally. You guys should stop listening to what your feminist friends say, and instead examine what the feminists in power are doing. All self-described feminists may not agree with the 50/50 concept, but if you examine political feminists, all of them are going in that direction. Not most of them. All of them. I've shown many examples of this, and I've asked you guys for examples showing the opposite, examples where political feminism tries to fix injustices by other means, but there's nothing.
If you believe that men and women should truly be treated equally, you believe in equality/humanism, which is vastly different from feminism.
Let's use the CEO issue as an example.
The feminists answer is to force companies to hire 50% female CEO's. So to counteract a few female victims (which in itself is a highly questionable opinion), they create an equal amount of victims among the male population, and then grants unfairly good treatment to the number of lucky women who applied for a job that was forced by policies to hire a woman. This doesn't help the women who didn't apply for that job, and it punishes only those men who were interested in female only job openings, while the rest of the men are not affected. Political feminism is enforced inequality and restricted freedom. Companies should have the right to hire whoever they want, without the government telling them what to do.
The ppl who believe in equality, their answer to female CEO's being underrepresented is to provide with laws that clearly states what sexism is, and then let every single case of proposed sexism injustice be decided in court. This is true equality and true justice, where a person, regardless of label can go to the court whenever they need help with solving an injustice. The legal system should provide justice for anyone who have been unfairly treated, based on gender, sexual orientation, culture, or whatever. This is the way of the future, if you believe in liberty, freedom, fairness and equality. Political feminism is an abomination to the modern justice system, and to freedom, something that our western european ancestors fought hard for.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
I don't think it is as simple as that. Which is why many people now describe themselves as egalitarian, because feminism only implies that women have gender biases to overcome. It says nothing about gender biases for men.'
I'm sad to see that few people seem to understand the point of my long-ass posts. Though I will consider the possibility that I am an idiot and/or a terrible writer.
Historically, women's issues far outweighed men's issues. They still do, for the most part. The focus of feminism is women's issues because women still aren't truly equal. Feminism fights against institutionalized sexism. That sort of sexism simply doesn't exist for men. Men have social issues that are specific to being male, but they are not at an institutional level.
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Who holds positions of power in society, men or women? Why?
Answer those questions, and you will realize what I'm talking about.
The people who are intelligent and works hard holds the power in society. Ask any successful woman that question and they will give you a similar answer.
I heard about some countries in Europe a few years ago passing laws mandating a certain % of women be for example on the board of directors in publicly traded companies. In the U.S. that law would be unconstitutional, ironically violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Out of curiosity L1ghtning, what would you suggest do (actually) tackle issues regarding sexism? It's really hard to prosecute so bringing people to court is a largely ineffective way to deal with the current existing inequalities in most cases. My cousin's wife was lined up to be promoted to partner in her engineering firm, but she got pregnant and magically didn't get the promotion. She can't PROVE that she lost it because she got pregnant but my cousin's a partner and he says that's essentially it. They picked a less competent guy. The problem with your suggestion that the people who are intelligent and work hard hold the power doesn't account for the fact that men are, on average, given more opportunities. White men especially, as we hear so often - but it's true. Women and minorities have to work harder to get equal benefits.
You say political feminism is an 'abomination' as if it had done something spectacularly bad, but they've been grossly ineffective at taking our privileges. And I agree that the 50/50 thing is ridiculous and I'm highly critical of those completely insane 'Tumblr Feminazis', but there's still work to be done and we can still get closer to equality - yet I see no convenient and easy way to get closer to equality. So you have to shuffle. The inegalitarian status quo is not necessarily inherently better than what feminist pressures could result in.
It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't. And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't. And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
On November 18 2013 23:21 Crushinator wrote: [quote]
I very much disagree that gender issues for men are of a different nature than those for women. As a matter of policy, many daycare centers do not hire men. As a matter of policy, many clothing shops do not hire men. As a man you do not want be alone with a child or teenager, nor would people trust you to be. It is harder for men to get the same rights as a parent in almost all countries. Men are more often unemployed, more often homeless, more often live in poverty, more often the victim of violence. Less likely to graduate university, more often bullied at school, and less likely to be protected from it. When a man shows anger/outrage he is described as dominant and agressive, while a woman is described as strong and assertive.
This is just off the top of my head, the list is very long, as it would be for women aswell. I fail to see how you can make such a definite determination that women have it so much worse. I do not mean to say that it is actually men that are the true victims, but it does smell like dogma to me that women are always the victims in gender relations.
Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible. Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes.
I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist.
I talk to feminists everyday and we talk about these kinds of issues every day. Our group is very diverse in ideology, but ALL of us acknowledge that men are disenfranchised as well. However, many men and women will tend to have different problems for obvious reasons.
While this seems like a perfectly valid viewpoint, I don't think calling either thing a gender-specific problem is going to solve anything at all. I feel that the root of the problem for most of the "gender-specific" issues that equality activists bring up is either a natural tendency due to the actual biological differences between men and women, or not a gender-specific issue at all, but a societal problem.
For instance, the statistics showing men serve longer than women for a similar crime, show that this is particularly true for black males, whereas white males don't have it nearly as bad. Insofar as I could see (I admit I didn't read through the paper all that carefully), this accounts for a significant portion of the 63% more jailtime they found for men than women. Now I'm not saying that that is okay, but the root cause seems to be racism here, rather than sexism... and it is hardly news that black people are given longer jail sentences than white people: this is a very real problem that needs addressing.
On the feminist side, I still feel that women are not inherently blocked from becoming a CEO, but the current manner of leading a business requires characteristics that are generally associated with men, and not women. Not saying women cannot do that, but there are simply more men that fit the bill. Note that I'm not saying that the current general practice for running businesses is the right way, or even a good way, but it's not sexist that women don't have those positions: it's simply that it is more likely that the owner of the company will find the characteristics he is looking for in a CEO in a man, than in a woman.
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't. And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
Because the Canadian system isn't universal?
Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected.
In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote: In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society.
Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans.
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't. And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
Because the Canadian system isn't universal?
Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected.
Now I don't know about the Canadian system, but in Sweden the parties purposefully put women on the top of their lists. Unless you as a voter actively tick men on your ballot you will automatically get about even representation due to that. I had a research article turn up that dealt specifically with the differences between the Canadian and Swedish systems, but I never read it sínce it wasn't what I was looking for. I'm sure you can find it on scholar.google.com if you're interested.
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote: In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
I say we end this discrimination with one simple action. Kill off every human being on the face of the planet so no one bumps nearly two year old threads. There, all human issues solved. You can thank me later.
On a more serious note. Lets put down the anger and dislike and pick up a nice good book and read about how to build rockets and further space travel.
On a non-derailing thread note:
There is a small % of women in the feminist movement (probably equivalent to the amount of men that think women shouldn't be allowed to vote) that think men cause all of societies problems. Interacting with those women causes people to think all feminists are like that. Sadly that is what the internet allows, for a small tiny group to make a lot of noise so people think that is the majority of the group.
This can be easily seen in the online community of where when I woman starts talking people go, "TITS! OMG! CHICK! MARRY ME!" and people mistake that for 90% of the male online community when in fact it is more like 5-10%.
On November 19 2013 01:47 Grumbels wrote: It's not about 50/50 quotas for employees or CEOs, but about at least 40% women for representative jobs such as member of board of directors for a top 100 company and member of parliament. And a policy that's not rushed but is implemented gradually.
I don't think that's a bad idea. It's obviously not the only thing you can do or the main thing you should do.
How do you put more women in parliament? They get elected or they don't. And forcing companies to put more women on their boards is not always possible. I can see it evening out over the long term like you said though, as more women get into business. But if they don't, you have don't have as many women who are competent in that particular domain.
Because the Canadian system isn't universal?
Yes but I'm saying it's not a choice that can be made by the government itself. If people want to elect more women, more women need to run and get elected.
Now I don't know about the Canadian system, but in Sweden the parties purposefully put women on the top of their lists. Unless you as a voter actively tick men on your ballot you will automatically get about even representation due to that. I had a research article turn up that dealt specifically with the differences between the Canadian and Swedish systems, but I never read it sínce it wasn't what I was looking for. I'm sure you can find it on scholar.google.com if you're interested.
Well the bottomline is Sweden uses a proportional representation system whereas Canada uses a single winner representation system. In Canada, there are no 'lists' for MP's. The electorate is divided in circumscriptions. There are as many circumscriptions as there are seats in parliament. Each MP is elected in his circumscriptions, and the party with the most seats forms the government.
There is no way to 'put women at the top of the list' in this case, the best you can do is have more women run for your party in the circumscriptions where they're likely to win, but you can't easily do it. The parties could dump men in favor of women or slowly replace them, though. But they still need to be elected directly by the electorate of their specific circumscription.
On November 18 2013 23:29 Conti wrote: [quote] Statistics are not going to tell you who has it worse. Sit down and talk to a woman about the subject some day, and ask about these things. Then compare it to your life, and think about what set of advantages and disadvantages you'd rather have.
i agree about the statistics (a fact that I belief supports my point), and I make a habit out of dissenting when women talk about how tough they have it. Most women have more balanced opinions than men oddly enough. Men are not usually aware of the ways in which we are disadvantaged, nor are men inclined to complain about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but so far in my life I have not yet come across a situation where, had I been a woman, I would have been better off. Of course I could complain that, statistically speaking, I was bullied more or whatever, but, well, that's just a silly statistics game. And I'm really not sure where I am disadvantaged. I'm sure there are examples to be found, but so far it really doesn't seem bother me.
I can't give many personal examples either. But the lack of personal experience isn't a very strong argument.
Why not? I mean, what's your goal here? "But men have it bad, too!" is a valid thing to say, but when someone is saying it he also usually implicitly says "So stop complaining, women." Which is just not the right thing to say for so many reasons. And if you did not mean to say the latter, what's your point?
Yes, men get more jail time, they die earlier, etc. So what? Find the causes for all these inequality issues, then see how they can be fixed (preferably by not throwing more women in jail to even the score). Exactly the same needs to be done for statistical issues where women are in a disadvantage.
I'm really not sure where we're disagreeing here.
Doesn't seem like we are in much of a disagreement, no. Doesn't mean that we can exchange thoughts though, don't think this is a debate club.
Though I will offer the point that not all statistical inequalities can or need to be fixed. Some of the difference could be explained by innate differences between the sexes, might be that women on average are less interested in achieving a position of power. Might be that men are more likely to take risks, leading to more extreme outcomes. Indeed both of those things seem plausible. Edit: Oh and my intention was to bring attention to the fact that men have problems too, and bad things can happen under the guise of feminism, And I do believe discussing that is the point of the OP.
Yeah, we feminists know that. We do not sit at our meetings envying men because they have no problems. We know the bullshit men face, we know that men have it unfair when it comes to homelessness and child custody. We know that men have it unfair when they are restricted to certain gender roles that deny who we are sometimes.
I'm not sure if you can speak for all or even most feminists. But if you feel confident about that, then that is great and I would probably be happy to come out and call myself a feminist.
I talk to feminists everyday and we talk about these kinds of issues every day. Our group is very diverse in ideology, but ALL of us acknowledge that men are disenfranchised as well. However, many men and women will tend to have different problems for obvious reasons.
While this seems like a perfectly valid viewpoint, I don't think calling either thing a gender-specific problem is going to solve anything at all. I feel that the root of the problem for most of the "gender-specific" issues that equality activists bring up is either a natural tendency due to the actual biological differences between men and women, or not a gender-specific issue at all, but a societal problem.
For instance, the statistics showing men serve longer than women for a similar crime, show that this is particularly true for black males, whereas white males don't have it nearly as bad. Insofar as I could see (I admit I didn't read through the paper all that carefully), this accounts for a significant portion of the 63% more jailtime they found for men than women. Now I'm not saying that that is okay, but the root cause seems to be racism here, rather than sexism... and it is hardly news that black people are given longer jail sentences than white people: this is a very real problem that needs addressing.
On the feminist side, I still feel that women are not inherently blocked from becoming a CEO, but the current manner of leading a business requires characteristics that are generally associated with men, and not women. Not saying women cannot do that, but there are simply more men that fit the bill. Note that I'm not saying that the current general practice for running businesses is the right way, or even a good way, but it's not sexist that women don't have those positions: it's simply that it is more likely that the owner of the company will find the characteristics he is looking for in a CEO in a man, than in a woman.
Ah, I was mostly referring to portrayal in media and culture. I do agree with what you are saying for the most part though.
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote: In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society.
Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans.
An unfortunate but necessary consequence of my plan.
I'm being a bit facetious in that, obviously you couldn't do it. Not do on the positive effects though.
More women in Parliament? More CEOs? How many women respect or know of figures in these positions? At least in the UK (as NI doesn't exist after all) politicians are roundly despised, and bar people who keep an eye on such trends, female boardroom percentages mean fuck all to most people. The masses on the other hand, do spend an inordinate amount of time reading the aforementioned publications, and IMO are actually influenced by them. This is not to say that everyone who reads Cosmo becomes a blabbering moron, but there's an aggregative negative influence across society. Unless ofc you believe that media solely reflects society and doesn't shape it.
An oft neglected aspect of this equation is that it's not males in the corridors of power, but (to generalise)- white males, often from positions of socio-economic privileg.
Black and from a deprived area? Having a penis is not enough leverage to overcome the advantages likely to be enjoued by your equivalent white woman from the affluent suburbs.
Not to say you can't end up on top in such a situation. You can finish ahead, you're merely that you're starting the race a bit later. That narrative is fine for individual cases, but population-wide it's not a deficit that is always recovered.
On November 19 2013 02:48 Wombat_NI wrote: In terms of tackling the culture, tackle the mechanisms that spread such a culture.
If I had the power I would ban those shitty gossip magazines and 'women's magazines'. All they do is perpetuate the idea that all women should be concerned with are men, clothes and vacuous celebrity shite.
Yeah Wombat because men banning women's shit is how we'll progress in society.
Northern Ireland is not even a place that exists and I have no intention of getting murdered by a crazy woman who's in gossip withdrawal because of your shenanigans.
More women in Parliament? More CEOs? How many women respect or know of figures in these positions? At least in the UK (as NI doesn't exist after all) politicians are roundly despised, and bar people who keep an eye on such trends, female boardroom percentages mean fuck all to most people. The masses on the other hand, do spend an inordinate amount of time reading the aforementioned publications, and IMO are actually influenced by them. This is not to say that everyone who reads Cosmo becomes a blabbering moron, but there's an aggregative negative influence across society. Unless ofc you believe that media solely reflects society and doesn't shape it.
The proportion of women CEOs and MPs or representatives matters in that the lack of women in positions of power perpetuates the notion that men run the world. And it's kind of a problem. Public perception about politicians being dicks and general apathy doesn't really matter.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
My big question is how do we reach that ideal though. I think a great society is one where we wouldn't artificially force a demographically representative society but where it could naturally converge toward that ideal, without ever reaching perfection (that would be strange). I could say the same about the representation of women in positions of power within private companies.
In other words, my question is, how do we facilitate the convergence toward more equality, without 'affirmative action' stuff that would 'oppress' men in favor of women. I could ask the same question about racially motivated discrimination and inequalities. Obviously it's a completely different can of worms and much of the issue can be traced back to social shit that needs to be worked on... The problem is a lot more complex to solve than people seem to give it credit.
And it's not a rhetorical question here, I truly don't have a solution and I keep dealing with women who think the simple fix is fuck men they've had it easy those chauvinistic bastard, and on the other side you have those good souls who are currently high as fuck 'don't worry man it'll figure itself out yo'.
On November 19 2013 01:08 Djzapz wrote: Out of curiosity L1ghtning, what would you suggest do (actually) tackle issues regarding sexism? It's really hard to prosecute so bringing people to court is a largely ineffective way to deal with the current existing inequalities in most cases. The problem with your suggestion that the people who are intelligent and work hard hold the power doesn't account for the fact that men are, on average, given more opportunities. White men especially, as we hear so often - but it's true.
You say political feminism is an 'abomination' as if it had done something spectacularly bad, but they've been grossly ineffective at taking our privileges. And I agree that the 50/50 thing is ridiculous and I'm highly critical of those completely insane 'Tumblr Feminazis', but there's still work to be done and we can still get closer to equality - yet I see no convenient and easy way to get closer to equality. So you have to shuffle. The inegalitarian status quo is not necessarily inherently better than what feminist pressures could result in.
If it's too hard to prosecute it can be changed, and it will be changed. The laws aren't any better than the ppl who wrote them, but it's a work in progress. The beauty of the open market state is that it naturally fights against things like bias, racism and sexism, because if you don't hire the most qualified person, simply because she's a woman, and you happen to not like women, then your competition will hire her, and they will steal market shares from you, and maybe even run you out of business. This is not a structural problem, it's a behavioural problem, and you can only fix it by legal means. That's the only way that you can target the offenders without punishing the innocent.
The danger of feminism is that they strip away our freedoms. In Sweden they currently try to remove our rights to spread out our parental leave as we wish, and in many countries they have enforced 50/50 gender distribution. Then it was the swedish festival fiasco I mentioned earlier, where a number of festivals went with a 50/50 artist distribution. This was not something that they forced upon the festival organizers, but a major political party leader was involved in it.
I'm not buying the assumption that white men are given more opportunities. They are not given opportunities, rather they are creating opportunities. Success is something that you have to create. The reason why white ppl are the most successful is because they're mostly descendants from the western european cultures, and these cultures have been the world leaders for hundreds of years. We are born with more wealth on average. Our parents and relatives are generally the most educated, and most successful in the world. Some of us have a father with a successful business, and a lot of knowledge to share that you wouldn't find out about in school. Some of us might get offered a entry job from a relative. There's a lot of advantages of being a white male, if you come from a successful family, but the advantages has to do with the environment and circumstances that you grow up in, rather than you being given free chances because of your skin color.
The reason why men are dominating over women is a more complex issue that noone could possibly answer without doing extensive research on the human body. It's true that we still live in a patriarchal society to some extent, but that doesn't mean that it's a unnatural construct. Men produces like 20 times as much testosterone as women, a hormone that have scientifically been linked to risky behaviour. It's ridiculous to assume that this doesn't have a major effect on our behaviour. Possibly the willingness to take chances could amplify your natural confidence, individualism and willingness to experiment, which are key traits for someone who wants to revolutionize their area of expertise. I've seen recent studies in school performance, which shows that women performs better on average. But the study also showed that if you only looked at the elite, the most successful students were actually predominately men. So, the elite men seems to outperform the elite women, even in academics, which seems to be the one thing that women performs better than men in on average. It's pretty clear if you look at the school results, and on society that men's performance is more hit and miss (probably based on whether they've found something to motivate them), while women are more stable and consistent. If anyone doesn't agree with this last paragraph, don't bother replying. I don't claim to know the answer to why men and women are different, I'm just showing that there might be other explanations to why we're different, other than "the patriarch corrupted us".
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
If you assume that the ability to represent the interests of others is not dependant on sex or ethnic origin then:
If a people achieves exactly equal opportunities for all independent of gender or ethnic origin then you would expect their democratic representatives to look like a random sample of that people with regards to gender and ethnic origin.
Not be a random sample of course, just look like it.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution.
however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution.
however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural.
I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing.
Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution.
however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural.
I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing.
Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about.
Ofc feminist wouldn't be up in arms about that, they are there to promote more rights for women, not more rights for men. The whole "equal rights" story is more or less a facade anyways, as seen at your examples.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
You don't have to accept equal ability to not like mechanisms which self reinforce. I don't believe in equal ability because we are different, so in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. On the other hand, I don't ike self reinforcing mechanisms because they promote staleness and not the necessary change should it be needed.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
I don't think you have the grounds to make the conclusion that it is due to sexism. If there is something inherent in the general male psychological profile which makes them appear to exert more power and control over the situation than with women, then all other things being equal, there will be a tendency for women to vote for men based on those appearances which is legitimate (well as legitimate as it gets in terms of choosing a representative; typically people vote people in based on their personal characteristics moreso than their technical policies).
But even assuming there is no argument to be made there and men and women both appear to project the same confidence, there's the question of how many women are interested in these positions in the first place. I think, assuming acrofales research is correct, that if there are meaningful differences that lead to a disproportionate level of men over women in the STEM fields, could not there also be a tendency for men to be those who seek power and control; much more so than women? So there is a much larger pool of interest from one sex over the other.
I'm not really sure if these issues have been studied at all, but it would be good to clarify that there really is no difference before assuming that people are sexist because they feel more comfortable with male leaders over female leaders.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution.
however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural.
I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing.
Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about.
Ofc feminist wouldn't be up in arms about that, they are there to promote more rights for women, not more rights for men. The whole "equal rights" story is more or less a facade anyways, as seen at your examples.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
You don't have to accept equal ability to not like mechanisms which self reinforce. I don't believe in equal ability because we are different, so in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. On the other hand, I don't ike self reinforcing mechanisms because they promote staleness and not the necessary change should it be needed.
We are different != in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. What you mean is groups are different. Which groups? And which group contains, on average, people who are better at representing the concerns of others?
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
I don't think you have the grounds to make the conclusion that it is due to sexism. If there is something inherent in the general male psychological profile which makes them appear to exert more power and control over the situation than with women, then all other things being equal, there will be a tendency for women to vote for men based on those appearances which is legitimate (well as legitimate as it gets in terms of choosing a representative; typically people vote people in based on their personal characteristics moreso than their technical policies).
But even assuming there is no argument to be made there and men and women both appear to project the same confidence, there's the question of how many women are interested in these positions in the first place. I think, assuming acrofales research is correct, that if there are meaningful differences that lead to a disproportionate level of men over women in the STEM fields, could not there also be a tendency for men to be those who seek power and control; much more so than women? So there is a much larger pool of interest from one sex over the other.
I'm not really sure if these issues have been studied at all, but it would be good to clarify that there really is no difference before assuming that people are sexist because they feel more comfortable with male leaders over female leaders.
I clearly stated the assumption I've made. That women and men are equally capable of representing the interests of others. The rest follows I think.
The assumptions you've made are interesting though. What makes appearing to exert more power and control over a situation a better criterion for representing you in a democracy than what tie they wear or if you'd enjoy a drink with them in a bar? How does a tendency to seek power and control qualify someone for office?
On November 19 2013 08:30 jcroisdale wrote: feminist like racist 100 years ago. In time people will realize they were ignorant and actually were fighting against equality.
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote: To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
My big question is how do we reach that ideal though. I think a great society is one where we wouldn't artificially force a demographically representative society but where it could naturally converge toward that ideal, without ever reaching perfection (that would be strange). I could say the same about the representation of women in positions of power within private companies.
In other words, my question is, how do we facilitate the convergence toward more equality, without 'affirmative action' stuff that would 'oppress' men in favor of women. I could ask the same question about racially motivated discrimination and inequalities. Obviously it's a completely different can of worms and much of the issue can be traced back to social shit that needs to be worked on... The problem is a lot more complex to solve than people seem to give it credit.
And it's not a rhetorical question here, I truly don't have a solution and I keep dealing with women who think the simple fix is fuck men they've had it easy those chauvinistic bastard, and on the other side you have those good souls who are currently high as fuck 'don't worry man it'll figure itself out yo'.
Instinctually I feel these issues are more subconscious (i.e, essentially ingrained) and thus the general cultural perception of women must change in order to facilitate a more egalitarian society. A full on cultural shift is super difficult to force, even with the hypothetical megalomaniacal powers I bestowed upon myself, never mind without those.
I think media outlets and their pandering of bullshit is one of the prime culprits, as is indeed corporate influence on the whole. Men are subject to marketing forces, but they are less predicated on their being men to me. You like football? Cool, if not, there's probably something else we can sell you. Whereas with women things like makeup are pseudo obligatory and come with the territory of being a woman, to not indulge in such products is something passremarkable.
In a way I'm lucky, being a white male I am pretty much the only kind of person who gets judged as an individual group, rather than as part of a larger collective that I may or may not identify with. As somebody who would be extremely pissed off with the latter, I can understand the frustration of womenfolk in that sense.
On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote: Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
What are women better at, and men better at, inherently?
Men are naturally physically stronger on average. Everything else could be social constructs as far as I know.
Some people argue that we're intellectually exactly the same in every way and it's society that shapes us to be the way we are. As far as I can tell, that would be a curious and incredible coincidence. There probably are some potentially marginal and irrelevant differences on average where one sex is better than the other - yet there's no real way to test for it until we raise hundreds if not thousands children in a controlled environment for the sake of testing their cognitive capacities over the course of their life...
Meh! It's just that whole nature vs. nurture debate that we'll never get rid off. The thing is especially annoying to discuss because you have die hard supporters of both sides who refuse to understand that different people have different innate faculties AND their environment shapes them also.
On November 19 2013 08:30 jcroisdale wrote: feminist like racist 100 years ago. In time people will realize they were ignorant and actually were fighting against equality.
What does this even mean? o.O
It actually sounded like some kind of caveman syntax
On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote: Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
What are women better at, and men better at, inherently?
Men are naturally physically stronger on average. Everything else could be social constructs as far as I know.
Some people argue that we're intellectually exactly the same in every way and it's society that shapes us to be the way we are. As far as I can tell, that would be a curious and incredible coincidence. There probably are some potentially marginal and irrelevant differences on average where one sex is better than the other - yet there's no real way to test for it until we raise hundreds if not thousands children in a controlled environment for the sake of testing their cognitive capacities over the course of their life...
Meh! It's just that whole nature vs. nurture debate that we'll never get rid off. The thing is especially annoying to discuss because you have die hard supporters of both sides who refuse to understand that different people have different innate faculties AND their environment shapes them also.
It's a complex issue, or at least something difficult to prove without large-scale unethical experiments.
Going to make a real big push to become planetary overlord so I can settle this once and for all.
On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote: Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
Really? I must be missing something because I actually thought it was a rather complex issue. Glad to hear you have solved this shit though, maybe you can enlighten the rest of us with your superior understanding.
On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote: Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
What are women better at, and men better at, inherently?
Men are naturally physically stronger on average. Everything else could be social constructs as far as I know.
Some people argue that we're intellectually exactly the same in every way and it's society that shapes us to be the way we are. As far as I can tell, that would be a curious and incredible coincidence. There probably are some potentially marginal and irrelevant differences on average where one sex is better than the other - yet there's no real way to test for it until we raise hundreds if not thousands children in a controlled environment for the sake of testing their cognitive capacities over the course of their life...
Meh! It's just that whole nature vs. nurture debate that we'll never get rid off. The thing is especially annoying to discuss because you have die hard supporters of both sides who refuse to understand that different people have different innate faculties AND their environment shapes them also.
It's a complex issue, or at least something difficult to prove without large-scale unethical experiments.
Going to make a real big push to become planetary overlord so I can settle this once and for all.
We don't need unethical experiments. We already have a decent enough control group: babies. And the experiments with babies have already been done. Those experiments have strongly suggested there are in fact significant biological differences between the sexes.
Obviously the nature/nurture debate is stupid because it's clearly both, but I think it's fair to say that most experiments today have supported the Nature side of the debate where academia previously pushed Nurture, and biology is progressing in that direction. Unfortunately most people don't hear about these findings so much, because they are terribly inconvenient premises for the sociologists and other potential architects of utopia.
On November 20 2013 07:04 Barrin wrote: When I was younger (not long ago really) I would take pride in being "chivalrous"; I didn't like the idea that "chivalry is dead." For whatever reasons I had a kind of fantasy where I would rescue some "damsel in distress" along with performing some severe act of "retribution". I would take offense when people were condescending towards "white knights" and immediately assumed they were culprits of "chauvinism".
I now know that I was being extremely naive. I now hope that I am never unfortunate enough to be in a situation where it would be up to me to enact "justice" with immediate violence (not that I purposely avoid it). If I ever find myself there I hope I will do what is necessary, damsel or not. I wish feminism was about equality for everyone, but I'm afraid that might not be the case in a lot of circles.
---
What really started to change my mind was this middle-aged female YouTuber who takes a stance against misandry. You can find her channel here, but there is a higher concentration of videos I've seen if you type "girlwriteswhat" into the YouTube search box. Unfortunately she is long-winded, but she is quite knowledgeable on the subject and very rational, and frankly listening to a woman bash misandry/"feminism" is distinctly convincing.
I am afraid one risks becoming misogynistic when consuming too much of www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill, but there are many great examples of modern misandry posted within. If you frequent this place, a good dose of The Art of Manliness can help you from becoming an asshole and getting stuck in the Alpha/Beta paradigm.
The nature of http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights makes it decidedly biased (and not without misogyny), but if you're still on the fence about whether or not men have gender-specific issues then it's worth checking out.
---
In my other/first post in this thread, I mentioned that I don't think freedoms should be denied (or even discouraged in society) based on sex or gender. I want to clarify that and say that I believe in meritocracy, where the people who are most qualified for a certain job should always get the job over someone less qualified. (This also means that I lean against Affirmative Action, but that's a different story.)
In an attempt to counteract any pro-male bias above, let me reiterate the fact that in our "patriarchal society" (U.S.), women tend to make significantly less than men even for the same jobs.[1], [2], [3](<- all PDF).
edit: 'misandry' to 'misandry/"feminism"'
Or you can read http://manboobz.com/ which looks at something horrible and toxic like the red pill and turns it into mocking comedy to allow people to cope with such things existing in the world. Or if you want to read comments about how girlwriteswhat is a total idiot that doesn't know what she's talking about.
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
All of our deep-seated hatred of women is instilled at a young age. We must reverse this trend before students grow to be of business school age! Forward march!
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
How many business school students and why are business school students representative of widespread social issues? I would argue, and I mean no offense to individual business school students, that the scum of the earth misogynists are probably over-represented in that area of study.
Also this video is a bit annoying. It does bring up valid points in such a clumsy way... Boss -> Bossy. Everybody complains that their Boss is bossy, male or female. Persuasive -> Pushy. Those are completely different things that can clearly be about both men and women. Dedicated -> Selfish. This might be a thing for the people who think women should be limited to their "motherly duties" or whatever. Neat -> Vain. I'm frankly more likely to mock guys who do this. It's bad of me but this one is complete bullshit. Smooth -> Show-off. That never happened in the history of the last 20 years, what the fuck.
Prejudice is omnipresents with women being discriminated against in many if not most areas of life. I'm not surprised that Pantene would only come up with a bullshit 1 minute clip on "labels" that don't actually exist in society.
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
On January 07 2014 18:02 oBlade wrote: Why should a survey of fantasy game characters be the first thing you go to when characterizing the problems between the sexes?
Because it's a facet of culture. The same way that one might characterize say, common themes and tropes in Hollywood action films. To use the word "first" is misleading, it's one of many things that can be analyzed. People write what they think, unconsciously. And also, especially in video game culture (and virtually everything else), it's not just "problems between the sexes", but rather "problems about the portrayal of both sexes".
I hate arguing or even considering arguing about the merits of feminism. In its modest, broad and most reasonable incarnation, feminism is so plainly rational and necessary in a modern society that it hurts my brain to even countenance not accepting it. However, I am interested in the debate which seems to have popped its head above the parapet in thispage, after the standard back and forth about the more prosaic topics died out; about whether RPG characters should have any difference in their base stats depending on their gender. I'll just consider strength here because it's the most argued about (in my experience).
My conclusion after having pondered it for a while is that there should be no difference - the people in any imagined (but ultimately similar to our) world who are going to grow up to become, for example, 'fighters', are not usual, standard people. Those standard people are doing the farming and the fishing. In whatever circumstance a woman or man could become something like a fighter, they would almost certainly have to have a certain strength and ability about them. Games, like movies, are all about creating a character whose story can be as unique as it needs to be to have them be the protagonist - for that reason, despite the fact that it might be rarer in today's society or any other society to find a woman who is as strong as a *strong* man, there's no reason why our protagonist in question can't be that rare person.
I should also point out that in a fantasy context, the strength and body structure required to fight handily with swords and shields is fairly unique. It takes a certain type of body control and endurance rather than simply muscle mass, and in terms of being effective with weapons, it can be closer to golf than it can to, say, chopping wood. I have a friend who is a reenactor who also fights with real, blunted weapons, who has told me several of the women in his company are as tough a task as any of the men to defeat.
A final point is that the term 'strength' covers so much that it would be a little ridiculous to cut down women's as standard. Strength often goes into 'chance to hit' which is clearly bizarre to give women a penalty in. Carrying weight - seeing as this isn't about making a one-time push but literally carrying things around - it's heavily based on endurance and mental tolerance, and I don't see how there is any sense in arguing that all women should start off at a disadvantage to men in that aspect. Damage done to enemy when they hit - to be honest, you are never going to be swinging at your maximum strength in a fight. You put in what you need to do to get your sharp, heavy blade to slice or stab your opponent - which isn't much. It's more about timing and accuracy. Even wielding a warhammer or battleaxe requires a lot more craft than just bashing your opponent - and even when considering this, you will mostly be letting the weight of the weapon do the 'talking'.
I'm sorry if this is wildly off topic for the purists...just felt like picking up a topic that hasn't already been beaten to death and is still something of a 'hot point' in video game culture.
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
How many business school students and why are business school students representative of widespread social issues? I would argue, and I mean no offense to individual business school students, that the scum of the earth misogynists are probably over-represented in that area of study.
Also this video is a bit annoying. It does bring up valid points in such a clumsy way... Boss -> Bossy. Everybody complains that their Boss is bossy, male or female. Persuasive -> Pushy. Those are completely different things that can clearly be about both men and women. Dedicated -> Selfish. This might be a thing for the people who think women should be limited to their "motherly duties" or whatever. Neat -> Vain. I'm frankly more likely to mock guys who do this. It's bad of me but this one is complete bullshit. Smooth -> Show-off. That never happened in the history of the last 20 years, what the fuck.
Prejudice is omnipresents with women being discriminated against in many if not most areas of life. I'm not surprised that Pantene would only come up with a bullshit 1 minute clip on "labels" that don't actually exist in society.
it is actually way simpler: men are perceived as good while women perceived as evil.
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
If you call that sexism then it goes both way. When the primary audience for a media is women, they paint men the way it pleases them (songs, women magazines, some movies/TV-shows). When the primary audience is men, they paint women the way it pleases them (car magazines, video games).
But to begin with, I don't even agree this is a problem. If you want to argue sexism, which I think exists (both ways), pick a subject that really matters like jobs, education, rights etc.
Edit: And I'm annoyed I cannot access the study in question (a few posts above) without having to pay the PDF.
Alright, so, this thread has had a large number of opinions clashing. Still, one thing that really interested me was discussions on the job market and the general split in the sexes. Someone brought up the idea that in a capitalist society, this can't happen because the businesses hiring the superior workers would win out should women be superior workers held back by their sex. I'd like to slightly go against this statement.
For most companies you'd need a tremendous difference in skill or intelligence to really see one company dominate others. It's possible that going into a somewhat untapped employee pool would bring a new perspective which might help a company/business, but that really shouldn't be the case. It is entirely possible that men are being considered more for certain high position jobs and a higher percent female workforce would not give one company an edge over the other. You can, however, still argue that female individuals who are far more competent than other male individuals aren't getting the job due to sexism, but I find that's a really strange argument to make (employers in large companies I'd guess like money more than they like to make their workforce primarily male). So I do believe it's possible that sexism may be a final decider for two equally skilled or similarly skilled employees. A mandatory 50/50 split should make sense (AS LONG AS THERE ARE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF APPLICANTS. IF THERE AREN'T, THEN A SPLIT BASED ON THE APPLICANT POOLS SIZE IS MORE APPROPRIATE).
Someone else brought up the idea that if sexism wasn't around (loose summary), then you'd expect to see a natural 50/50 split. If you didn't, then biological reasons should account for the difference. Makes sense. So then the argument follows that this possible biological difference can influence the situation while social biases are present. Neurochemical and biological differences certainly say it's possible, but from what I understand, the degree of differences shouldn't be that big in abilities. Physique-wise, a woman working out to the same degree as a man won't be incredibly far behind the man in terms of strength, which is why saying the average woman is weaker than the average man by a good degree is pretty stupid to chock up to biology. Men tend to work out more than women on average, and casually going to the gym or even taking gym classes more seriously in school is not that uncommon, whereas less importance is placed on physical fitness for women (past a certain extent, of course). The reason for this whole paragraph of text is to say that there may be a reason for women not being represented well in job requiring physical labor outside of biology, and takes much more from a social aspect. The reason this is important is because despite this, there isn't any mandatory 50/50 split for service individuals in companies requiring good amounts of physical fitness. So, the 50/50 rule isn't applied evenly to all professions.
And last comment, the point of that last paragraph or so was to say that I agree that the 50/50 rule for employment is relatively stupid, as it doesn't actually try to make society equal. It makes whichever jobs people feel are important more equal.
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
In a widely-read study, business school students were given a case assignment on Heidi, a real-life successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. But there was a catch. Half of the class randomly received their case with one teensy tiny change made: The name "Heidi" was changed to "Howard." Afterward, the students were surveyed, and though Heidi and Howard were found equally competent (as they should have been because they are the same person), the students found Howard much more likeable. The following ad pretty much sums up why.
not significant. The name Heidi is clearly of german origin and a negative attitude towards germans might have changed the results considerably.
Seriously? The entire world is not Greece.
However, that commercial was disgusting. It basically took a legitimate issue, in this case women's rights and tried to use it to sell a product . Buy Pantene to show that you are against labels concerning the sexes. But something does tell me that most people did not notice this was a commercial for a shiny hair product.
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line "Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
On January 08 2014 05:57 Dark_Chill wrote: Alright, so, this thread has had a large number of opinions clashing. Still, one thing that really interested me was discussions on the job market and the general split in the sexes. Someone brought up the idea that in a capitalist society, this can't happen because the businesses hiring the superior workers would win out should women be superior workers held back by their sex. I'd like to slightly go against this statement.
For most companies you'd need a tremendous difference in skill or intelligence to really see one company dominate others. It's possible that going into a somewhat untapped employee pool would bring a new perspective which might help a company/business, but that really shouldn't be the case. It is entirely possible that men are being considered more for certain high position jobs and a higher percent female workforce would not give one company an edge over the other. You can, however, still argue that female individuals who are far more competent than other male individuals aren't getting the job due to sexism, but I find that's a really strange argument to make (employers in large companies I'd guess like money more than they like to make their workforce primarily male). So I do believe it's possible that sexism may be a final decider for two equally skilled or similarly skilled employees. A mandatory 50/50 split should make sense (AS LONG AS THERE ARE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF APPLICANTS. IF THERE AREN'T, THEN A SPLIT BASED ON THE APPLICANT POOLS SIZE IS MORE APPROPRIATE).
Look up Adrian Newey, the most successful race car engineer in the history of F1. He was heading the Williams and McLaren teams at their both respective primes, and when he left McLaren for Red Bull, they went from a lower mid range team to the undisputable nr 1. This guy clearly knows what he's doing, since he's been constantly at the forefront. Don't tell me that if you're not getting the best man or woman for the job, it doesn't matter in the end.
Businessmen does discriminate, probably a lot more than the rest of us, but they do it based on profitability. That's why jobs are being shipped over to China, because it's cheaper labour. Businessmen are even willing to move their organizations and abandon an experienced workforce, to train up another work force that is less educated, and needs a lot of investments, but who will get paid less in the end. Why don't businesses apply these same principles to women, I wonder? Supposedly their production per salary ratio is higher than men, so how come the businesses doesn't hire exclusively women? Could it maybe be that the salary gap is one big sham?
You're making the assumption that men and women are equally deserving as groups, which is clearly based on a idealistic fairytale. If you want fairness, you would have to look at education levels, prior performance and experience, among other things and it's silly to assume that both genders are performing of equal worth in all of those categories. Gender needs to be removed from the equation if you want equality and fairness. That's what I've said all along. The answer to equality is to remove all labels and to treat each person as an individual, rather than man or woman, black or white, rich or poor. When we let these labels guide our actions, we get easily swayed in favour of the group that is the underdog, and this creates a system of injustice, because we look at gender or race policies, rather than the actual specifics.
To make a less contrasting example, where there's no clear stronger category (asfaik), let's say that you need to hire a proportional amount of gays? How do you know that these 2-5%? people are equally deserving as the rest? Isn't it better to let the businesses decide this for themselves, rather than the government telling them that they are equal, just because it fits with their personal ideology. Ideologies are not based on facts, and that's why we shouldn't let feminism or other ideologies taint our governments. Affirmative actions has one purpose, and that is to lift up a certain label, (usually the ones proposing it belong to this label) at the expense of others, and at the expense of quality of work. Feminists wants more, but they don't want to do the work that is necessary, and so they complain and tell the government to give them their share, in the process, totally discrediting the hard work of their men colleagues, as well as their hard working fellow women, who now isn't being taken seriously anymore, because of the fact that the women who undeservedly got preferably treated now is showing how incompetent they are, and dragging the reputation of all women down in the process.
Someone else brought up the idea that if sexism wasn't around (loose summary), then you'd expect to see a natural 50/50 split. If you didn't, then biological reasons should account for the difference. Makes sense. So then the argument follows that this possible biological difference can influence the situation while social biases are present. Neurochemical and biological differences certainly say it's possible, but from what I understand, the degree of differences shouldn't be that big in abilities. Physique-wise, a woman working out to the same degree as a man won't be incredibly far behind the man in terms of strength, which is why saying the average woman is weaker than the average man by a good degree is pretty stupid to chock up to biology. Men tend to work out more than women on average, and casually going to the gym or even taking gym classes more seriously in school is not that uncommon, whereas less importance is placed on physical fitness for women (past a certain extent, of course). The reason for this whole paragraph of text is to say that there may be a reason for women not being represented well in job requiring physical labor outside of biology, and takes much more from a social aspect. The reason this is important is because despite this, there isn't any mandatory 50/50 split for service individuals in companies requiring good amounts of physical fitness. So, the 50/50 rule isn't applied evenly to all professions.
You make the assumption that because it might be a social aspect, it has to be a social aspect, and that it has to be a negative and artificial aspect. This is typical feminist thinking. They believe that society has made women into the failure that they are (by their standards, not by mine), so they will look for anything, something that seems to fit in with their belief, but without being able to prove the connection. They see men and women as competitors, but any reasonable human being knows that we are not supposed to be. We are complementary, with our own sets of unique strengths and flaws. That doesn't have to mean that we need clear definitions of men's work and women's work. I don't know that answer, noone does, and I don't think it's worth finding out either. Instead, we need to stop controlling ppl's lives and allow men to make the decisions that their biology wants them to. Same thing with women. You need to realize that even if there's social differences, and differences in how we make our decisions, this too may be traced back to biology (rather than learnt behaviour). In fact, look up that norwegian documentary, where it was shown in studies that women in western societies are a lot more attracted to the female stereotypical jobs, aka lesser jobs, as defined by feminists, compared to countries where there's been no women's movements. Freedom seems to create inequality? That makes no sense, and the more logical explanation would be that the western women knows how well they get treated by the government, so they don't bother as much about making money. This seems to be by far the biggest reason why men earn more salary on avg, not because women are inferior, but because they generally make poor career choices (in terms of salary).
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example.
On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line "Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes:
I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever. Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all too easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!" If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games.
And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think. Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of.
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
I don't agree that there is a lack of strong female characters in videogames, the blizzard and mass effect universes have plenty for example, as does almost every other RPG universe, and they also almost always allow you to pick gender. And I do think the disparity in numbers between male and female gamers in video games can largely be explained by inherent differences in average preferences, and I certainly don't think a lack of female characters has anything to do with the difference.
On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line "Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes:
I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever. Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all to easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!" If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games.
And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think. Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of.
Of course maternity issues are raised. But just because the status of women in Middle Eastern societies is horrendous does not preclude anyone from raising any issues in Western society. Similarly, just because companies behave terribly does not preclude other issues that are being raised. It's a nonsensical criticism that tries to silence, rather than consider. The hostile environment facing women in IT is very well documented for example. Things like the Stubenville rape case are being justified, the perpetrators were supported by the local community. If you're going to ask feminists to stick to the "uncontroversial" stuff, you've just zoned out progress entirely on many fronts. Progress is always going to be made at the edge of the status quo, while not all change is progress, you underestimate how controversial your "uncontroversial" issues are.
I'm not sure why that company isn't facing a lawsuit that will burn it to the ground. Perhaps it has to do with American law and the social stance that profit is king. Regardless, why should that, or similar cases prevent us from discussing this issue on TL, a gaming forum? It's the social sciences, if you're waiting for a degree of uncertainty similar to mathematics, you're never going to get it. Consider also that it's easier to defend the status quo than it is to examine it. You've already agreed that Anita Sarkeesian's backlash was crazy, where do you suppose it comes from and why did it happen? Does that not signal of deeper issues within the gaming communities and that she was simply the lightning rod?
I'm not attacking you, but the reason you should leave that brain out is because it's completely unverifiable. State your stance, argue your viewpoint, but claiming unverifiable objective perspective isn't the best way to engage in discussion.
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example.
Because biology is a non-answer. Everything is biology, depending on how you define it. If you want to make the claim that maleness inherently makes video games more attractive, you've got to substantiate such a claim. Because what you're driving at is that there is some heritable biological factor (genetics, epi, whatever) that made video games more attractive to males specifically.
An interesting little read http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed. Being ancient I've watched most of this happen. My first memory ever being my dad bringing an IBM PC jr home in 1984 when I was 2, I've always been around computers and games. Though my mom would never let us get a console, we ALWAYS had a computer. My little sister grew up with them and she enjoyed video games growing up (granted me and my brother didn't want her to play because we wanted to). Most of the girls I knew growing up who had any access to video games liked to play them. But at some point the whole thing sort of shifted into a boys play games, girls don't situation. I don't know, even though I was alive for this whole games go from family fun to boys only club marketing I never much paid attention to it. Kind of interesting to go back and see some of the stuff, though a lot of it is very cringe worthy.
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example.
Because biology is a non-answer. Everything is biology, depending on how you define it. If you want to make the claim that maleness inherently makes video games more attractive, you've got to substantiate such a claim. Because what you're driving at is that there is some heritable biological factor (genetics, epi, whatever) that made video games more attractive to males specifically.
I've not seen any studies on video games, but I've seen similar studies that shows that boys and girls make different choices, in a stereotypical fashion, and I'm talking about children at the toddler level, ie where they couldn't have possibly been "corrupted" by society. I don't think saying that men are more interested in games, purely because of biology is very far-fetched. Rather, it's the logical conclusion, although ofc, this is a area that haven't really been studied in depth to make a 100% secure assumption.
Anyway, you're wrong when you say that we need to prove that men are more interested in games. It's the feminists who have a problem with this, not the rest of society. So it's up to the feminists to prove that the male bias in games is unnatural and destructive. They need to prove that boys are more interested to games, because of societal pressure/corruption or whatever, rather than biology. Don't expect us to buy into your theories, when you can't back it up with science.
I've always found the notion that "Men and Women have the same mind before one is corrupted by society," to be equally as poisonous as "Men are better then Women."
Both are generalisations, the first is scientifically untrue, unless brain architecture is irrelevant, and the latter is impossible to measure outside of "Men are stronger then Women," which with technology being what it is should be completely irrelevant.
While I very much believe in an equal opportunity society, I have serious problems with the belief that however many thousands of years of evolution hasn't created a difference between the genders, and that those differences can't account towards the vast discrepancies in various occupations. It seems to be just as intellectually dishonest to believe that everything is as it should be, or that all of the differences in society are caused by the patriarchy.
On January 09 2014 23:03 bo1b wrote: I've always found the notion that "Men and Women have the same mind before one is corrupted by society," to be equally as poisonous as "Men are better then Women."
Both are generalisations, the first is scientifically untrue, unless brain architecture is irrelevant, and the latter is impossible to measure outside of "Men are stronger then Women," which with technology being what it is should be completely irrelevant.
While I very much believe in an equal opportunity society, I have serious problems with the belief that however many thousands of years of evolution hasn't created a difference between the genders, and that those differences can't account towards the vast discrepancies in various occupations. It seems to be just as intellectually dishonest to believe that everything is as it should be, or that all of the differences in society are caused by the patriarchy.
Feminism has no regard for reality
Stuff like hormones and different reproductive organs do not make people different in their wants and needs according to them
It has nothing to do with genes that females have to fight hard for each drop of blood, whereas males just sit on their asses and eat the sweet nectar that they feel is owed to them just by merit of their gender.
On January 09 2014 11:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On January 09 2014 07:26 hummingbird23 wrote:
On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:
On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote: That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly. The interview video is good though ^^
Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games.
Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line "Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes:
I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever. Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all to easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!" If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games.
And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think. Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of.
Of course maternity issues are raised. But just because the status of women in Middle Eastern societies is horrendous does not preclude anyone from raising any issues in Western society. Similarly, just because companies behave terribly does not preclude other issues that are being raised. It's a nonsensical criticism that tries to silence, rather than consider. The hostile environment facing women in IT is very well documented for example. Things like the Stubenville rape case are being justified, the perpetrators were supported by the local community. If you're going to ask feminists to stick to the "uncontroversial" stuff, you've just zoned out progress entirely on many fronts. Progress is always going to be made at the edge of the status quo, while not all change is progress, you underestimate how controversial your "uncontroversial" issues are.
I'm not sure why that company isn't facing a lawsuit that will burn it to the ground. Perhaps it has to do with American law and the social stance that profit is king. Regardless, why should that, or similar cases prevent us from discussing this issue on TL, a gaming forum? It's the social sciences, if you're waiting for a degree of uncertainty similar to mathematics, you're never going to get it. Consider also that it's easier to defend the status quo than it is to examine it. You've already agreed that Anita Sarkeesian's backlash was crazy, where do you suppose it comes from and why did it happen? Does that not signal of deeper issues within the gaming communities and that she was simply the lightning rod?
I'm not attacking you, but the reason you should leave that brain out is because it's completely unverifiable. State your stance, argue your viewpoint, but claiming unverifiable objective perspective isn't the best way to engage in discussion.
You evidently don't understand the context of our conversation. I don't think I've stated any of my real views on feminist debate topics at any point during this conversation. I was responding to a post that pointed to the lack of "strong female characters in video games" as conclusive evidence that sexism is still rampant. I was offering critique on how to convince others that sexism is still very common. My point is that it is not effective evidence, for reasons I outlined, it is not an effective argument, for reasons I outlined, and it is especially ineffective at convincing people who are not already on your side. Also, the whole "not sexist, probably never will be" thing was brought up because it is part of why people like me would react very poorly to people citing the shortage of strong female video game characters as proof or even remotely good evidence of sexism. The complete argument for that, for context: + Show Spoiler +
As a sheltered person who is not sexist and does not possesses the mental faults necessary to be sexist, I cannot comprehend how someone could be sexist and never saw anything close to sexism in person. As a result, it is all to easy for me (and people like me) to project my thought processes onto others, and when combined with the fact that I have seen far more feminist zealotry than real issues, it makes citing poor arguments a completely awful tool for convincing people like me that sexism is a real, large scale issue in modern western society.
If you want to convince people, you start with evidence or an argument that is good enough that they cannot help but cede your point. You don't put out an argument that can be completely (and effortlessly) torn to shreds at least 10 different ways.
On November 18 2013 12:23 Wombat_NI wrote: Never before can I recall an ideal damaged so horribly among the minds of many by the flagrant misuse of the term by supposed adherents as feminism.
I proposed in another thread that a rebrand is in order, by and large I stick to that.
Just thought it needed to be observed that this feminism is nowhere close to taking this title:
Christianity Islam Hinduism Buddhism (occasionally listed as an exception by folks unwilling to be made aware of any history of China or Japan) Sikhism Judaism (really most religions with good ideals but followers who diverge from them. Several, including Christianity and Judaism, also have harsh words in the sacred texts for those that lose sight of the greater things and get bogged down in the stuff that causes these problems)
Democracy (see the crap the US pulled in the Cold War) Socialism (see USA) Abolitionism (Africa 19th century imperialism anyone?) Liberalism (associated in many places with oppressive imperialism) Absurdism (I blame any and all two-bit artists trying to be avant garde) ...
Yes, feminism has an image problem. But really any ideology with grand ideals does. Because people become extremists, taking things to their illogical conclusions. Because people don't live up to their ideals. Because people get super heated, and use inflammatory language or attacks. Because people don't accept compromises, insisting on getting it all, or getting nothing. Because people who believe in something worth fighting for do bad things to fight for it... and, often as not, harm the very thing they were trying to protect.
Feminism is a toxic ideology these days, they rotate around in unfalisfiable claims to justify their agenda.
Feminism these days is not about equal rights, they already got them. It is about demonizing men and taking advantage of todays progressive society.
The problem feminism has is that they are rotating in their ideology and the gradually accept the most extreme point of view within their group. This happened many time, alway the most extreme point of view will be accepted by the majoritiy of feminists. They also stick to people like adria richards that failed on so many levels, a healthy community would not do this. They would get rid of such persons and wouldnt stick up for them.
But i think people will realize this more and more. Right now there is a trend were people that once identified with this movement will abandon it since they realized there is nothing good left in it.
Everyone has to think critical about feminism and everyone has to do ones part to bring it down or bring it back to sanity.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
On January 12 2014 12:16 Sokrates wrote: Feminism is a toxic ideology these days, they rotate around in unfalisfiable claims to justify their agenda.
Feminism these days is not about equal rights, they already got thIt is about demonizing men and taking advantage of todays progressive society.
The problem feminism has is that they are rotating in their ideology and the gradually accept the most extreme point of view within their group. This happened many time, alway the most extreme point of view will be accepted by the majoritiy of feminists. They also stick to people like adria richards that failed on so many levels, a healthy community would not do this. They would get rid of such persons and wouldnt stick up for them.
But i think people will realize this more and more. Right now there is a trend were people that once identified with this movement will abandon it since they realized there is nothing good left in it.
Everyone has to think critical about feminism and everyone has to do ones part to bring it down or bring it back to sanity.
This is akin to saying Destiny represents most gamers. I don't think you've done much critical thinking of your own.
Fuck, if everyone just read some basic mother fucking Foucault half the stupid arguments in this thread wouldn't exist.
The way that society and culture are built is usually non overt and unintentional, but that doesn't make it harmless. That's what Sarkeesian has stressed in all her videos. Portraying only passive or expendable female characters is probably not malicious or intentionally sexist - rather it's a product of the designer's own influences and the work will go on to subtly influence future culture. It's the same shit that crafts ideas on "how to be a man" which are also damaging and hurtful.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Because they got there first because nobody else was showing any interest in the field. Might as well ask why anything is called anything.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Because of the history behind the movement and field and difficulty in changing a huge portion of philosophy and academia. Gender theory didn't exist before it. It's a misnomer but there's misnomers all over the place in academic fields.
There's tons of contemporary issues feminism has and y'all aren't hitting on any of them. It's just the same old mra neckbeard bullshit that's been spewed for 40 years.
You know who has the biggest qualms with modern mainstream feminism? Women of color. Not Anglo Saxon men.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Because of the history behind the movement and field and difficulty in changing a huge portion of philosophy and academia. Gender theory didn't exist before it. It's a misnomer but there's misnomers all over the place in academic fields.
There's tons of contemporary issues feminism has and y'all aren't hitting on any of them. It's just the same old mra neckbeard bullshit that's been spewed for 40 years.
You know who has the biggest qualms with modern mainstream feminism? Women of color. Not Anglo Saxon men.
As exemplified by the Moran "I couldn't give a shit about representation of women of colour" fiasco.
"Feminism" only works in developed countries as the stabilities of the infrastructure are almost all constructed by men. And by feminism I don't mean the "gender equality" party line stated by the organization by the media, I mean the unfair treatment of the organization's outsiders in a sense that the feminist would attempt to abuse their powers under the legislation. So only until you obtain a "safe" environment that the modern feminist can begin acting out of line. It is a privilege, not a right.
Sooner or later as the western infrastructure collapses in terms of economy, it will be men on the frontline repairing the problem, not women. Essentially, men can get the momentum swung the other way to their favor and women will revert back to how it was in the 60's.
On January 12 2014 12:16 Sokrates wrote: Feminism is a toxic ideology these days, they rotate around in unfalisfiable claims to justify their agenda.
Feminism these days is not about equal rights, they already got thIt is about demonizing men and taking advantage of todays progressive society.
The problem feminism has is that they are rotating in their ideology and the gradually accept the most extreme point of view within their group. This happened many time, alway the most extreme point of view will be accepted by the majoritiy of feminists. They also stick to people like adria richards that failed on so many levels, a healthy community would not do this. They would get rid of such persons and wouldnt stick up for them.
But i think people will realize this more and more. Right now there is a trend were people that once identified with this movement will abandon it since they realized there is nothing good left in it.
Everyone has to think critical about feminism and everyone has to do ones part to bring it down or bring it back to sanity.
This is akin to saying Destiny represents most gamers. I don't think you've done much critical thinking of your own.
Fuck, if everyone just read some basic mother fucking Foucault half the stupid arguments in this thread wouldn't exist.
The way that society and culture are built is usually non overt and unintentional, but that doesn't make it harmless. That's what Sarkeesian has stressed in all her videos. Portraying only passive or expendable female characters is probably not malicious or intentionally sexist - rather it's a product of the designer's own influences and the work will go on to subtly influence future culture. It's the same shit that crafts ideas on "how to be a man" which are also damaging and hurtful.
1.Sarkeesian arguments are totally debunked, there are a million videos out there that prove her wrong. 2.Sarkeesian took 100k $ made a bunch of shitty videos that were mostly done by her boyfriend (for free) and she didnt even play the games. 3.Just because as time moves on people get more "progressive" doesnt mean you can apply your standards from today to the past. There is a quote of thomas sowell saying: "60years ago people would have called your a radical, 30years ago they would have called you a liberal and today they call you a racist." 4.If women do want to change something they should make their own games towards their own peer group. Nobody is hindering them. Sounds a bit dull? Yeah in a way it is but then again just whining about shit doesnt get shit changed. People do not make video games to make less profit, they make video games taylored to a group of people that will buy those games. Society doesnt change over night, so it is pretty ironic that these people want to apply their extreme point of view to all other regular people in a blink of an eye. 5.I m not saying all feminists are bad but from what i m seeing is that most feminists are not benevolent. They are mostly malicious and hatefull people. All they do is bitch about "white males" that are "evil" and "bad". So they are doing nothing else then shit on their very own beliefs, if they ever had such. 6.Where was the outcry of popular feminists or feminists about the adria richards thing? Not a single critical word was said. Do you know why? Because they all agree or at least tolerate this. Why didnt some popular feminists that have a lot of followers on their blogs or twitter say that adria richards is a malicious person and this stuff shouldnt be done by an upstanding feminist that whats society change to the better? Instead of telling her to go to hell, they rather stick up for her no matter how indefensible her position was.
So now you tell me WHY i should support this kind of movement that accepts the biggest bullshit just because someone calls him/herself a feminist. I also dont see any "modern" popular feminists that debunk the gender is soley a social construct fart. Nobody is speaking up against this. How come?
Actions do show intentions. Just because you write nice things on your flag doesnt mean you stand for them.
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Feminist would be a rather poor word for that, yes, and "believing in equality between the sexists" is a rather poor characterization of feminism. Feminism is activism for the expansion of female rights.
Frequently this does serve the cause of gender equality. Sometimes it doesn't. (It should be born in mind that 'gender equality' is not the be-all end-all. Improving conditions for Group A is always a good thing if it brings no harm to people who are not of Group A.)
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote: If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Feminist would be a rather poor word for that, yes, and "believing in equality between the sexists" is a rather poor characterization of feminism. Feminism is activism for the expansion of female rights.
Frequently this does serve the cause of gender equality. Sometimes it doesn't. (It should be born in mind that 'gender equality' is not the be-all end-all. Improving conditions for Group A is always a good thing if it brings no harm to people who are not of Group A.)
Feminism has become much more intersectional than your characterisation of it.
Gender equality is way different than thinking genders are the same. I'm with the first, feminist are in the second group.
Caring wether boys and girls play videogames, like barbies, dancing or lifting weights seems completely pointless to me. What is important is that people in general are held to the same standards and equally against the law. Positive discrimination laws for woman (what feminist do) or in favor of any other group (blacks, white, latinos, etc) are detrimental for society and just another form of collectivism an unfairness towards the individual.
The same way current germans are not held accountable for Nazi war crimes, it is completely ridiculous to hold current white males responsible for the living condition of woman or blacks or wathever 100-500 years ago.
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
I don't agree that there is a lack of strong female characters in videogames, the blizzard and mass effect universes have plenty for example, as does almost every other RPG universe, and they also almost always allow you to pick gender. And I do think the disparity in numbers between male and female gamers in video games can largely be explained by inherent differences in average preferences, and I certainly don't think a lack of female characters has anything to do with the difference.
How do you not agree that there is a lack of female characters? It's just a basic fact must be considered. I have already stated that there are examples of female characters in video games, but it is still highly male dominated.
"According to data gathered by Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR), few video games have exclusively female heroes. This is in part because, according to EEDAR, "there's a sense in the industry that games with female heroes won’t sell", which Penny Arcade attributed in part to these games receiving much less marketing budget as games with male heroes"
Also, you say that the disparity between female and male gamers can just be attributed to the differences in average preferences, but how do you exactly think these preferences are created? Our society pushes these preferences at a young age through the form of media and traditional culture. We teach boys and girls how they should act in society and define what is masculine and feminine for them. Going against the standards made by our society usually lands people as a social outcast. Whether you like it or not video games in our society are attributed as a masculine activity which is why it is so male dominated. It's certainly a hard truth to swallow, but it is just ignorant to think that we live in a perfect society and video games or any form of entertainment aren't biased.
"Women continuously exposed to extreme versions of the modern "ideal woman” (large breasted and slender, with longer-than-normal legs and breasts that defy gravity) are reported to have increased levels of body dissatisfaction, negative moods and depression, and lower levels of self-esteem and self-worth"
"Males are affected by media images as well. Men who view images of “the ideal male” (muscular with very little body fat) have been reported to have more negative body images and are more likely to try to gain weight/muscle mass or use steroids, as well as, more recently, increased risk of suffering from eating disorders"
On January 13 2014 09:30 GoTuNk! wrote: Gender equality is way different than thinking genders are the same. I'm with the first, feminist are in the second group.
Caring wether boys and girls play videogames, like barbies, dancing or lifting weights seems completely pointless to me. What is important is that people in general are held to the same standards and equally against the law. Positive discrimination laws for woman (what feminist do) or in favor of any other group (blacks, white, latinos, etc) are detrimental for society and just another form of collectivism an unfairness towards the individual.
The same way current germans are not held accountable for Nazi war crimes, it is completely ridiculous to hold current white males responsible for the living condition of woman or blacks or wathever 100-500 years ago.
What on earth is a positive discrimination law? Nobody is holding anyone responsible, people are just simply taking note on how in our society some groups have an advantage compared to others. You act as if all racism and sexism has simply ended and there is nothing to worry about anymore. There is countless evidence of modern discrimination (for women and minorities) in the workforce and in daily life. Also, just because you don't care about gender roles and how our society pushes it on everyone doesn't mean that it isn't a problem that needs to be solved.
Edit: Positive discrimination is called affirmative action in US
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote: I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
I don't agree that there is a lack of strong female characters in videogames, the blizzard and mass effect universes have plenty for example, as does almost every other RPG universe, and they also almost always allow you to pick gender. And I do think the disparity in numbers between male and female gamers in video games can largely be explained by inherent differences in average preferences, and I certainly don't think a lack of female characters has anything to do with the difference.
How do you not agree that there is a lack of female characters? It's just a basic fact must be considered. I have already stated that there are examples of female characters in video games, but it is still highly male dominated.
"According to data gathered by Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR), few video games have exclusively female heroes. This is in part because, according to EEDAR, "there's a sense in the industry that games with female heroes won’t sell", which Penny Arcade attributed in part to these games receiving much less marketing budget as games with male heroes"
Also, you say that the disparity between female and male gamers can just be attributed to the differences in average preferences, but how do you exactly think these preferences are created? Our society pushes these preferences at a young age through the form of media and traditional culture. We teach boys and girls how they should act in society and define what is masculine and feminine for them. Going against the standards made by our society usually lands people as a social outcast. Whether you like it or not video games in our society are attributed as a masculine activity which is why it is so male dominated. It's certainly a hard truth to swallow, but it is just ignorant to think that we live in a perfect society and video games or any form of entertainment aren't biased.
"Women continuously exposed to extreme versions of the modern "ideal woman” (large breasted and slender, with longer-than-normal legs and breasts that defy gravity) are reported to have increased levels of body dissatisfaction, negative moods and depression, and lower levels of self-esteem and self-worth"
"Males are affected by media images as well. Men who view images of “the ideal male” (muscular with very little body fat) have been reported to have more negative body images and are more likely to try to gain weight/muscle mass or use steroids, as well as, more recently, increased risk of suffering from eating disorders"
Oh no superheros that do things no living human being is able to do and they look unnatural. What a critical statement. We better stop making superhero movies and games because people will have less selfconfidence.
Human nature will never be fair, there will always be people that look better, are taller and more intelligent than others. Just deal with it. The next thing is that movies use beautiful people as actors, we better get ugly actors so nonone feels bad about themselves.
Life is not fair and you do not make it better when everything people create or do is being viewed as wrong just because you said so.
People see discrimination, racism and sexism in the most petty shit, it never stops. Do you think it is more healthy when everybody puts every word on a scale and judge if this was "racist" or "sexist". Do you really think that makes a better society when everybody has to watch out what one says or does because other people might get "offended". God i really hate that shit when somebody comes up with "i m offended", i always precieve them as immature childs. And i m not talking about extreme words here.
And also: No men and women are not the same, they will never be the same no matter how much you try to bend society in your ideal world patterns. That will never happen and it only creates stress on men and women alike. More than those video game characters.
On January 13 2014 09:30 GoTuNk! wrote: Gender equality is way different than thinking genders are the same. I'm with the first, feminist are in the second group.
Caring wether boys and girls play videogames, like barbies, dancing or lifting weights seems completely pointless to me. What is important is that people in general are held to the same standards and equally against the law. Positive discrimination laws for woman (what feminist do) or in favor of any other group (blacks, white, latinos, etc) are detrimental for society and just another form of collectivism an unfairness towards the individual.
The same way current germans are not held accountable for Nazi war crimes, it is completely ridiculous to hold current white males responsible for the living condition of woman or blacks or wathever 100-500 years ago.
What on earth is a positive discrimination law? Nobody is holding anyone responsible, people are just simply taking note on how in our society some groups have an advantage compared to others. You act as if all racism and sexism has simply ended and there is nothing to worry about anymore. There is countless evidence of modern discrimination (for women and minorities) in the workforce and in daily life. Also, just because you don't care about gender roles and how our society pushes it on everyone doesn't mean that it isn't a problem that needs to be solved.
Edit: Positive discrimination is called affirmative action in US
Did not know, I'm against positive discrimination. I don't think it is fair that X% of managers/employees/etc have to be woman/black etc.
First, it is unfair for the individual that does not gets hired because of some arbitrary law someone else less qualified got the job. Second, it is impossible to construct fair laws because of the million hidden correlations. Say, X% of managers have to be woman. How do we determine X? how does X vary per industry? How do we adjust for time in the workforce? Population in the country, state or area?
My problem with gender role thing is that it is almost impossible to tell with any degree of certainty wether gender roles on any activity is dictated by biology or because of society standards.
Men prefer weight lifting because they have higher testosterone levels or because society push them to it?
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true. This is hardly any news though. White males are discriminated against in most western government. The reason we accept it is because we have bought into the feminist idea of white male privilege. I used to buy into some of that stuff too, but then I educated myself.
Anyway, I was watching TV yesterday, and on one of the channels, the Swedish Left Party (4th largest party, at ca 10%) had a live congress meeting where the elected members of the party all across the country were present. And anyone who had anything to say about any political matter would take the stand and speak their mind. I'm interested in politics, so I was curious and decided to listen to them for a while. After only a few minutes, a guy went up to speak, and guess what he said? He started out by complaining about the lack of conflict, and that he saw the discussions as somewhat of a waste of time, since everybody agreed and seemed to talk about the same things. I suppose this made sense. However, then he finished with this line: "so, I encourage all the white men present to NOT take the stand." (in order to save time)
He was basically saying that white men are expendable, and that their time to express ideas would have to be sacrificed, to make sure that the non-whites and the women got their chance to speak. When he said those words, I was shocked, and I remember looking at the other party members for a reaction, but noone seemed to care. And guess what? This guy was white himself. Their way of saving time, is to suppress the ideas of those who represent the wrong gender and cultural background. This party is expected to win the 2014 election, as a minor party in a coalition government. The other 2 parties that would be part of that coalition are a bit larger and not as extreme, but they too have feminism high up on their agenda.
These discussions about what a real feminist stands for is just irrelevant. Yes, there are saintly feminists who wouldn't hurt a fly, but unless they hold any power in society, they're irrelevant. Look at the feminist politicians, and look at the influential feminist organizations, and also look at the schools and what feminist ideas they're educating us about. The kind of feminism that you find in these areas. That's the feminism that has an impact on society, so it's that feminism that you need to examine thoroughly, not the feminism of the girl next door.
This thread makes me really sad. Do you guys who say feminism is a bad thing really think all is well in Western countries with gender roles, objectification, oversexing, etc?
Heck, never mind that, do you not understand the "equal rights under the law" you think are evidence of equality are the product of feminist agitation? What is your ideal world? 60's gender roles? The West today? Wahhabist Saudi Arabia?
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies.
I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against.
On January 13 2014 10:46 Yoav wrote: This thread makes me really sad. Do you guys who say feminism is a bad thing really think all is well in Western countries with gender roles, objectification, oversexing, etc?
Heck, never mind that, do you not understand the "equal rights under the law" you think are evidence of equality are the product of feminist agitation? What is your ideal world? 60's gender roles? The West today? Wahhabist Saudi Arabia?
The idea that feminism is necessary because "feminism created the equality we have today" is ridiculous. The statement itself is highly debatable, and also, it's exactly like saying that we need Christianity because of what Jesus Christ accomplished (assuming his story is true). Even if Jesus Christ is legit, that doesn't make "his" church true. Which church has the true faith? Which version of feminism today is the true version?
You're being very naive. Capitalism values exactly what the masses value. This is why objectification of the female sex sells. It's the same thing with men. I'm not sure if it's to the same extent, but if not, it's just a result of a lack of demand. Maybe men are just more interested in sex than women are? Maybe having that huge abundance of testosterone does affect us after all?
Anyway, it's funny that you mentioned gender roles, since feminism tries to force gender neutral gender roles upon all of us, even those who prefer more traditional roles. I definately support flexible gender roles. That's just another reason why I can't support feminism.
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies.
I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against.
I'm in class and I think you're very biased so I don't intend to reason with you too long. That said, I know many employers who don't hire women because they get pregnant. My cousin is a partner at an engineering firm. His brother's wife works there, and she was lined up for a partnership with the firm. She lost it when she get knocked up.
Supply and demand is great if you assume it to be right like the dumb sheeple you appear to be, but the free market left to its own devices is filth.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
As for the income thing, I know that.
Lastly, your blind faith in the market and capitalism is laughable and despicable. And yes, feminism did play a huge role in getting women equal rights (at least on paper). You say it's highly debatable, but women taking to the streets did change the world. It's a direct result. It could have happened another way but history is not written in 'if's'. You can't just dismiss historical facts just because they're compatible with your bullshit ideology.
PS: Again, I'm highly critical of feminism most of the time, but I firmly believe that you have a biased, unreasonable position.
Talking to most people about feminism is like talking to nooby RTS players who theorycrafts all day and refuse to do even the most basic research. They do nothing but listen to themselves and create their own reality about the topic they are engaging in and always find excuses for things that contradict the fantasy world they live in.
Perhaps another way of explaining this is that such people spend more time arguing against their deranged constructions.
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies.
I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against.
I'm in class and I think you're very biased so I don't intend to reason with you too long. That said, I know many employers who don't hire women because they get pregnant. My cousin is a partner at an engineering firm. His brother's wife works there, and she was lined up for a partnership with the firm. She lost it when she get knocked up.
Supply and demand is great if you assume it to be right like the dumb sheeple you appear to be, but the free market left to its own devices is filth.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
As for the income thing, I know that.
Lastly, your blind faith in the market and capitalism is laughable and despicable. And yes, feminism did play a huge role in getting women equal rights (at least on paper). You say it's highly debatable, but women taking to the streets did change the world. It's a direct result. It could have happened another way but history is not written in 'if's'. You can't just dismiss historical facts just because they're compatible with your bullshit ideology.
PS: Again, I'm highly critical of feminism most of the time, but I firmly believe that you have a biased, unreasonable position.
I think i can agree to a lot of what you said in this post.
I still think there is a bias towards men and women in general, i dont think one should argue about that. But taking the other side and saying all is about bias instead of denial of any bias isnt the right way either.
What cracks me up about such people is the lack for a healthy middle ground, people always take it to the extremes. Extremes do not make sense, not everything is black and white. Especially this discussion has many shades of grey (no phun intended :D).
Every movement or party that thinks in the extremes will fail over time, and i will see this happening to feminism. Modern feminism, if it continues going down this road will ultimately alienate people from it taking the oppostion and will only leave very few delusional people. So in the end such people and the current path they are choosing to go will result in failure, they are hurting their goals.
Also the "hivemind" mentallity will not help either. People that have a healthy approach to this topic (feminists or not) have to speak up against bullshit. You cannot ignore it because you think people will exclude you and say "if you say that you are not a feminist", they also have to distance themselves from malicous persons instead of enouraging them or tolerate their actions.
But sadly as everywhere the most unintelligent have the biggest voice.
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies.
I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against.
I'm in class and I think you're very biased so I don't intend to reason with you too long. That said, I know many employers who don't hire women because they get pregnant. My cousin is a partner at an engineering firm. His brother's wife works there, and she was lined up for a partnership with the firm. She lost it when she get knocked up.
Supply and demand is great if you assume it to be right like the dumb sheeple you appear to be, but the free market left to its own devices is filth.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
As for the income thing, I know that.
Lastly, your blind faith in the market and capitalism is laughable and despicable. And yes, feminism did play a huge role in getting women equal rights (at least on paper). You say it's highly debatable, but women taking to the streets did change the world. It's a direct result. It could have happened another way but history is not written in 'if's'. You can't just dismiss historical facts just because they're compatible with your bullshit ideology.
PS: Again, I'm highly critical of feminism most of the time, but I firmly believe that you have a biased, unreasonable position.
What cracks me up about such people is the lack for a healthy middle ground, people always take it to the extremes. Extremes do not make sense, not everything is black and white. Especially this discussion has many shades of grey (no phun intended :D).
Yeah, although I obviously can't have perfect objectivity (being human and all), I think I'm capable of having a fairly nuanced view in most things. In most arguments, I find myself arguing with both sides of the argument at the same time. In this debate, I think that most arguments made by feminists are ridiculous, and I'm also annoyed at people who outright deny the existence of sexual discrimination and other such social issues.
I believe that a rational feminism still has its place in society. And like you said, only the stupid ones seem to have a voice now. Anita Sarkeesian is not doing anyone any good with her BS, for instance. But that doesn't mean that feminism is obsolete.
Well, Sweden does have some of the most pro-female laws in the whole world, so I guess that's also a part of why Lightning is so outspoken on this matter. I've read about some of the Swedish laws concerning divorce and alimony and that stuff and I thought they were quite harsh on men actually.
I also want to chime in on the "sexualization of society" bit. I think that both men and women are getting disadvantages of it, not just the women.
And as a last thing, please let kids play with whatever toys they want and don't sue toy companies because they made a commercial with a girl playing with barbies and a boy playing with race cars.
On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote: Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true.
They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too.
The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous.
That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit.
The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies.
I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against.
I'm in class and I think you're very biased so I don't intend to reason with you too long. That said, I know many employers who don't hire women because they get pregnant. My cousin is a partner at an engineering firm. His brother's wife works there, and she was lined up for a partnership with the firm. She lost it when she get knocked up.
Supply and demand is great if you assume it to be right like the dumb sheeple you appear to be, but the free market left to its own devices is filth.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
As for the income thing, I know that.
Lastly, your blind faith in the market and capitalism is laughable and despicable. And yes, feminism did play a huge role in getting women equal rights (at least on paper). You say it's highly debatable, but women taking to the streets did change the world. It's a direct result. It could have happened another way but history is not written in 'if's'. You can't just dismiss historical facts just because they're compatible with your bullshit ideology.
PS: Again, I'm highly critical of feminism most of the time, but I firmly believe that you have a biased, unreasonable position.
It's completely irrelevant if the ppl who fought for equal rights called themselves feminists or women, or whatever. Feminism has to prove that they're relevant today. What other feminists did or didn't do years ago doesn't really matter.
About your acquaintance who lost a job opportunity for getting pregnant. You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story". This shows a lack of source critique on your part. Don't accuse others of being biased when you can't even back up the claim, especially not when you're biased yourself. If you represent the unbiased middle ground, I'm clearly wasting my time here.
If I were to speculate about the case... Well, firstly, if your portrayal of what happened is accurate, they were clearly going to hire her when she wasn't pregnant. In other words, they weren't discriminating against her at that point. However, her getting pregnant made them change their mind. Why? Because they don't like pregnant women? No, because they were convinced that it would hurt her performance. They must have been thinking this, because if they didn't, it would contradict your statement about the job being pretty much hers. I mean, if the job was pretty much hers, and her pregnancy wouldn't impact her performance, she would have ended up with the job. And yet she didn't.
This is not fair, but it's not discrimination, it's just a good example of the inequalities in our biology. You might think that a pregnancy wouldn't impact her work that much, but clearly from their perspective, there must have been some obstacle, possibly something that we can't see with the limited information we have at our disposal.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
Yes, cultural/social prejudice exists, but it's hardly something that relates to women only. I'm all for refining and possibly expanding the justice system though, which I've also said earlier on in the thread. Discrimination cases can only be settled in court, and that's where the focus should be.
Anyway, you should really consider cleaning up your tone. Throwing insults around (mostly without basis or explanation) doesn't really put you in a good light.
On January 14 2014 06:35 L1ghtning wrote: You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story".
That kind of crap is so annoying when arguing with people like you on forums where anyone can say anything. That's why I'm always quite pessimistic when I engage in online arguments. That story was intended as an example but it also serves a dual purpose. Your rhetoric seems to deny the very existence of problems. By bringing up an example of something which is known to be reasonably common, I show that there's work to do in some parts of the private sector, thus invalidating your position which seems to be about how such problems don't happen.
Don't accuse others of being biased when you can't even back up the claim, especially not when you're biased yourself. If you represent the unbiased middle ground, I'm clearly wasting my time here.
I'm a fucking guy using data points...
Well, firstly, if your portrayal of what happened is accurate, they were clearly going to hire her when she wasn't pregnant. In other words, they weren't discriminating against her at that point. However, her getting pregnant made them change their mind. Why? Because they don't like pregnant women? No, because they were convinced that it would hurt her performance. They must have been thinking this, because if they didn't, it would contradict your statement about the job being pretty much hers. I mean, if the job was pretty much hers, and her pregnancy wouldn't impact her performance, she would have ended up with the job. And yet she didn't.
We can talk about the specific occurrence but you yourself would be the first to say that it's irrelevant. My point is that such corporate behavior is not uncommon.
I have two cousins, both partners at engineering firms. One of them works in Montreal, for the same company as the other cousin's wife. He's on the partner's board where they decide who becomes a partner for the firm. She had it, and when she got pregnant, my cousin was sitting on the board where they decided not to give her the partnership on the basis that she's pregnant.
From your immoral supply and demand standpoint, this is perfectly fine. Us civilized people know that it's a terrible fucking thing to do, and it's also illegal, much like firing pregnant women on the assumption that they might not be able to perform as much after having a kid. According to the law of the jungle, it's perfectly fine. It's also fine to hire the kid when it'll be 12 year old and get the poor thing to clean heavy machinery 16 hours a day. Fortunately, the world is no longer fully dependent on what the market wants. (Although we could argue that the market wants to step the fuck up and be decent for once).
Sadly, since the process of naming partners is largely informal, she has no recourse, and she's fucked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This is not fair, but it's not discrimination, it's just a good example of the inequalities in our biology. You might think that a pregnancy wouldn't impact her work that much, but clearly from their perspective, there must have been some obstacle, possibly something that we can't see with the limited information we have at our disposal.
You're willing to accept another man's nebulous perspective as evidence that there was a founded real problem that was legitimately solvable by giving a partnership to somebody else. Given that engineering is a male-dominated field, the fact that you outright deny the legitimacy of this whole ordeal is ridiculous. It wasn't that long ago that women were nearly completely shut out. Your denial that part of this culture could still exist is laughable.
Yes, cultural/social prejudice exists, but it's hardly something that relates to women only. I'm all for refining and possibly expanding the justice system though, which I've also said earlier on in the thread. Discrimination cases can only be settled in court, and that's where the focus should be.
There are groups fighting against all kinds of cultural and social prejudice and such social and political problems are solved in large part by lobbying. The judiciary system operates according to formal laws which are written by politicians with some limited but very real input by the people. There's also an informal part where the culture affects judiciary decisions because whether we like it or not, supposedly "neutral" judges are just like us a product of our society. As such, groups like the feminists and the capitalists and the socialists or the gay rights activists or the people who lobby for giving the English language a bigger place in Quebec, they can slowly but surely affect policy AND the application of the laws, as well as just people's general outlook on life and morality, equality, etc.
Many feminist movements are just militant angry bitches, pardon my French. Same with the Muslims, Christians, Atheists, the anglophones, the LGBT folks, or whoever the fuck. But others can still influence our customs and our traditions. And with some luck, maybe someday we won't have to put up with the people like yourself who seem to argue that it's fair to give men an advantage with higher odds of getting a partnership because the cooter allegedly comes with increased risks of being less productive (which clearly is affected in part by gender roles as dictated by tradition and in some cases assumed by government laws (fathers not getting paternity leave, for instance, can be seen as an advantage, but it can also screw with women's career ambition).
They say that part of running a business now is also to be a good citizen. A nation's wealth doesn't come only from its ability to plunder the wealth from the land and the workforce.
Anyway, you should really consider cleaning up your tone. Throwing insults around (mostly without basis or explanation) doesn't really put you in a good light.
Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults".
On January 14 2014 06:35 L1ghtning wrote: You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story".
That kind of crap is so annoying when arguing with people like you on forums where anyone can say anything. That's why I'm always quite pessimistic when I engage in online arguments. That story was intended as an example but it also serves a dual purpose. Your rhetoric seems to deny the very existence of problems. By bringing up an example of something which is known to be reasonably common, I show that there's work to do in some parts of the private sector, thus invalidating your position which seems to be about how such problems don't happen.
I just showed that your example didn't prove anything. Just because you have an example that hints that there MIGHT be a problem, doesn't mean that there is a problem. It's up to feminism to prove that the problem is real, and they haven't been able to do that.
And no, you're wrong in saying that when you look at women's opportunities, if they're pregnant, they should get the same opportunities that they would get if they weren't pregnant. Well, unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards? If we have a system where women don't have to live up to the same standards of productivity and performance as her competitors, just because of a pregnancy, then it just makes businesses less likely to hire young women, because then they become a high risk category. Firing a woman for getting pregnant is wrong, simply because of job security, but not offering her a new job or a promotion is fine, if there is a valid concern about her performance. The business must have the right to get the best person for the job, all things considered, because if the playing fields aren't even, it becomes a gamble, and when you bring risk analyzation to the table, that's when the actual discrimination starts.
You may think that the government forcing this firm to give this person the job might be fair. But in reality, what would happen is that the firm, and other firms who heard about the story would be less likely to be interested in female applicants in the future, because of the risk factor. Why do you support something that would create more discrimination against young women? How would you battle this discrimation? Affirmative action?
You're willing to accept another man's nebulous perspective as evidence that there was a founded real problem that was legitimately solvable by giving a partnership to somebody else. Given that engineering is a male-dominated field, the fact that you outright deny the legitimacy of this whole ordeal is ridiculous. It wasn't that long ago that women were nearly completely shut out. Your denial that part of this culture could still exist is laughable.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy. Women are not as willing to study engineering as men are. This is a fact in the western world. There was a norwegian documentary linked somewhere in this thread, that shed a lot of light on the subject of genders making different decisions, and the conclusion was that it most likely had to do with biology.
I'm going to give you an example too. In Sweden, our University level studies are a bit different. Rather than picking a major, we pick a program, and then the school has assigned a bunch of courses to that program. In some situations we have the choice to pick 1 out of several courses, but most of the time, it's decided for us. So, there's a certain program here in Stockholm on the Royal Institute of Technology, and in english this program would probably be called Construction Engineering. This has always been a men's field, just like Computer Engineering, so in order to attract more women, they decided to rename it to "Construction Engineering and design". And guess what! The amount of female applicants more than doubled, immediately. The actual courses of the program didn't change at all. All that was changed was the program name. How do you explain that, other than by saying that men and women tends to look for different things when they pick a career?
Well then we fundamentally disagree AND you're willfully ignorant.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy.
I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance.
unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards?
How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly... She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too.
You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion).
I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology.
I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base.
On January 14 2014 09:55 Djzapz wrote: Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults".
I agree with you in this argument 100% and absolutely but as to this sentence, this is one of the more facepalm-worthy I have seen in Team Liquid discourse...come on man. You are better than that.
On January 14 2014 09:55 Djzapz wrote: Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults".
I agree with you in this argument 100% and absolutely but as to this sentence, this is one of the more facepalm-worthy I have seen in Team Liquid discourse...come on man. You are better than that.
<3 Sorry. Apparently I'm quite shit! My argumentation is like that because it's not in an academic of formal setting, so I let my language reflect my emotions instead of just trying to be rational. If it makes me look bad, oh well. I tried to adjust it in the last few posts, but I spend my whole life being serious and sometimes it gets tiring. If I came here to write like I do at work, I'd expect to get paid.
My students try to pick arguments with me and I can't tell them they're stupid even when they are. My colleagues do pick arguments with me and I can't tell them they're stupid even when they are. I can tell the bros though!
But you agree with the argument, so that's what matters to me. If you facepalm also, then I'll at least have entertained you. Cheers.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy.
I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance.
unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards?
How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly... She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too.
You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion).
I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology.
I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base.
You claimed that this woman had the job in the bag, and that it was the pregnancy that made her lose it. And now you're trying to explain to me that her pregnancy wouldn't have had an effect on her performance. Why did they promise her the job when she wasn't pregnant, but not when she was pregnant, if the pregnancy wasn't an obstacle? If the pregnancy was just an excuse, they would have never promised her the job to begin with. You're clearly contradicting yourself. And what gives you the right to be the judge btw? You're still fixed on the idea that the firm did something wrong, and you haven't even heard their side of the story. I don't know their exact reasons. That's why I'm not criticizing them. You're criticizing them based on your blind faith in your acquitance. I have also explained why forcing them to give her the job would just create discrimination against young women. You have nothing to say about that, because you can't admit that you are wrong. Your reaction to being called out for being wrong is to spew out offensive words at your debate opponent. I can get a bit sharp too with my critique, but I only use words that I can back up through explanations.
I don't have all the answers, but I don't tolerate bullshit. I'm against feminist politics for the same reason why I'm against religion in politics. Feminism is not science. It's just a bunch of theories, and it's up to them to prove every single one of their theories. When you let theories without scientific foundations have a say in our lives, society is heading in the wrong direction. This is what's happening with feminism in many countries.
On January 15 2014 00:27 Djzapz wrote: Well then we fundamentally disagree AND you're willfully ignorant.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy.
I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance.
unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards?
How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly... She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too.
You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion).
I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology.
I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base.
You claimed that this woman had the job in the bag, and that it was the pregnancy that made her lose it. And now you're trying to explain to me that her pregnancy wouldn't have had an effect on her performance. Why did they promise her the job when she wasn't pregnant, but not when she was pregnant, if the pregnancy wasn't an obstacle? If the pregnancy was just an excuse, they would have never promised her the job to begin with. You're clearly contradicting yourself.
There's absolutely no contradiction, you're making the contradiction yourself in order to make the entire ordeal more suitable to your viewpoint.
You point out the contradiction in what I've said by assuming the corporate behavior to be legitimate. They were going to give her the PARTNERSHIP which btw is not a job, she's already their employee. She lost that opportunity when she got pregnant despite the fact that her performance remained high. But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet. The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant.
So there's no contradiction. You made it up for your convenience.
And what gives you the right to be the judge btw? You're still fixed on the idea that the firm did something wrong, and you haven't even heard their side of the story. I don't know their exact reasons. That's why I'm not criticizing them. You're criticizing them based on your blind faith in your acquitance. I have also explained why forcing them to give her the job would just create discrimination against young women. You have nothing to say about that, because you can't admit that you are wrong. Your reaction to being called out for being wrong is to spew out offensive words at your debate opponent. I can get a bit sharp too with my critique, but I only use words that I can back up through explanations.
As I said, my other cousin is on the partner's board. He was there when they made the decision not to give her the partnership when she got pregnant. He couldn't do anything about it because the decisions are taken by majority. It was discussed that she didn't get the partnership because she's pregnant. But when they gave the partnership to another guy (who, according to my cousin, is much less competent than my other cousin's wife), they didn't tell her that she didn't get the partnership because she got pregnant, because that's grounds for a lawsuit AS IT SHOULD BE.
I don't have all the answers, but I don't tolerate bullshit. I'm against feminist politics for the same reason why I'm against religion in politics. Feminism is not science. It's just a bunch of theories, and it's up to them to prove every single one of their theories. When you let theories without scientific foundations have a say in our lives, society is heading in the wrong direction. This is what's happening with feminism in many countries.
I couldn't possibly care less about feminist theories. I care about social, cultural and political issues that sometimes cause discrimination against women (or men, or anyone else). I care about the practical issues that exist in society. "The patriarchy" is a flawed concept and it doesn't tell me anything about what life is like.
Men still discriminate against women, white people still discriminate against black people, and vice versa. The reason why equal rights movements still exist is to attempt to deal with those problems that do still exist, whether they're due to remnants of the old traditions, or legislative/judiciary failures.
And good luck finding my so called ideology.
I'm pretty sure I know the kind of man you are. The broad strokes. Not pretty.
Not sure I understand the situation completely up there, but doesn't make much sense to me. You can't really predict a person's job performance due to having a child (some people can manage it all, others not so much) but isn't it more about the maternity leave? I don't actually know how long it is, or what the division rule is for the family, but wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off on that promotion or whatever until after she was fully back to work?
On January 15 2014 03:42 Dark_Chill wrote: Not sure I understand the situation completely up there, but doesn't make much sense to me. You can't really predict a person's job performance due to having a child (some people can manage it all, others not so much) but isn't it more about the maternity leave? I don't actually know how long it is, or what the division rule is for the family, but wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off on that promotion or whatever until after she was fully back to work?
A partnership represents an extremely important career move. The company realistically wouldn't care much about a few weeks of maternity leave (she took 3 weeks), as the partnership usually lasts for many decades. It's assumed that a mother would take more days off over the course of the kid's early life and whatnot, which the company wouldn't know until it happened.
And you're right, you can't predict a person's job performance or their dedication due to having a child, but apparently according to L1ghtning, it's okay to assume. And as it is, my cousin's wife is still working 60-hour weeks as a mother and she takes as many days off as my cousin does when the kid is sick. They share the burden.
But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet.
I didn't say that her current performance were subpar. Noone in their right mind would think that a woman who just got pregnant, wouldn't be able to do her best at that very moment. It's the future that they had concerns with.
The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant.
Yes, finally you get it. They thought that she wouldn't be able to do the job as well as another person who wasn't pregnant. It's their decision. This is not a charity. A business needs to be able to pick the person that they think is the best. It's only you and your cousin on that board, and the woman in question who thinks that it's a unfounded reason, and you're all biased, since you know this person, and would always want what's best for her. The others on the board disagreed with you, and they were not coming from a position of bias. And they went for the guy instead. If the government had forced them to give her the job anyway, they would have been cautious in the future about hiring young women, or making that kind of offers to them.
Men still discriminate against women, white people still discriminate against black people, and vice versa. The reason why equal rights movements still exist is to attempt to deal with those problems that do still exist, whether they're due to remnants of the old traditions, or legislative/judiciary failures.
You're clearly a lost cause since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against. You just KNOW it's true, and that's enough. It's because of ppl like you who just accept everything you're being taught without questioning it that we have created a society that discriminates in the name of anti-discrimination. I accept those opinions as theories, but that's all they are, theories. Of course, on a person to person basis, there are sexists and racists, and these ppl should get punished by our courts, but the idea that there's a systematic sexist and racist discrimination, that's not a fact. It's your opinion, and it's the opinion of feminists.
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet.
I didn't say that her current performance were subpar. Noone in their right mind would think that a woman who just got pregnant, wouldn't be able to do her best at that very moment. It's the future that they had concerns with.
The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant.
Yes, finally you get it. They thought that she wouldn't be able to do the job as well as another person who wasn't pregnant. It's their decision. This is not a charity. A business needs to be able to pick the person that they think is the best. It's only you and your cousin on that board, and the woman in question who thinks that it's a unfounded reason, and you're all biased, since you know this person, and would always want what's best for her.
She was lined up for it but she ended up not getting picked for a feminine characteristic. This is discrimination. The fact that the free market may justify it doesn't help us better understand if it's moral or not. As I said to display this before, the free market had little kids dying in dirty factories back in the day. Therefore "capitalism" is not a good basis for deciding whether we should do something or, unless private enterprise is not a part of our society and above morality. I would argue that yes private enterprise needs to make a profit, while behaving according to our moral standards.
I understand what you say, but the fact that a bunch of men speculate that a women won't be able to do the work because she's pregnant is bullshit, even though you might be able to justify it from a pure capitalist's standpoint, which btw is not the pinnacle of human achievement as you seem to believe.
Part of our disagreement, as I've said, stems from the fact that you outright assume capitalism and free market / supply and demand to always lead to the best and greatest thing. You should take a moment and ponder that.
You're clearly a lost cause since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against. You just KNOW it's true, and that's enough. It's because of ppl like you who just accept everything you're being taught without questioning it that we have created a society that discriminates in the name of anti-discrimination. I accept those opinions as theories, but that's all they are, theories. Of course, on a person to person basis, there are sexists and racists, and these ppl should get punished by our courts, but the idea that there's a systematic sexist and racist discrimination, that's not a fact. It's your opinion, and it's the opinion of feminists.
It's funny because we have the same criticism of each other. The only difference is that you're essentially asking for evidence of something that's not only obvious to anyone intellectually honest, but it's SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that even if I brought up this evidence, you would outright deny it. Want to know why I know that you would deny it? You already have, because it's in front of your eyes.
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
The point is that regardless of how prevalent the problem is, it's okay to try to deal with it.
Perhaps your blind faith in capitalism is not just PART of the reason why we disagree, but the entire reason why. It blinds you, makes you unable to see discrimination. Had we lived in the early 1900's when women were uneducated, if I had told you that there is discrimination, you would have told me there isn't: Women are dumb and incompetent, why should we try to elevate them? They can't do it and we know this because they don't. The market says women have no value and therefore that is a fact.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
I don't necessarily believe in widespread discrimination, I merely believe that it still exists on a fairly important scale. I don't know what "widespread" entails but either way it does happen. And we have reasons to believe that it happens fairly frequently (those of us who don't dismiss all social problems by saying 'the free market wills it'.)
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
You did when you assumed the decision to be right. And my cousin who's in the board said it's bullshit, I don't assume anything. I don't assume that she didn't get the partnership because she got pregnant, that's literally what happened. You ASSUME that it's okay because capitalism and therefore everything is dandy.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us.
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
Employers will hire based on expectations, they can't possibly know everything about the individual, and must therefore generalize based on characteristics, unfortunately womanhood is one of those. The cost to the employer of pregnancy and child care on average is much greater for women than for men. Employers do not make the assumption that women will be inferior to men, when it comes to this, they are simply hiring based on expecations (averages).
You could force employers to hire in some desirable proportions, accepting the market inefficiencies that come with that. However, would it not be much better to focus on reducing the inequality between men and women when it comes to investing in children? Access to daycare, forced and equal parental leave, perhaps some kind of compensation for employers for pregnant workers. Encouraging men to take up more, and, (implicitly) women less, of the child care responsibilities seems like a much better way to reduce this kind of discrimination.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
It's somewhat similar. He's saying that Dj is biased and not using actual proof for his conclusions. No proof means can't women/blacks are discriminated against, no proof means feminists can't make conclusions about stuff.
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us.
Easiest thing for whites is just look at the huge difference in socioeconomic status between whites and minorities. It's pretty gigantic, and shows that while there may not be direct racism against the groups, there does exist some type of racism. It's harder for women, because deciding what measure you want to use can have hugely different effects. Do you take single men vs single women? A husband vs wife? What if a child is brought into the formula? You will probably not see a large socioeconomic difference between the sexes, because there aren't as many combinations to choose from.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the law
An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
I specifically said that I don't care for their theories repeatedly to you, so I don't know why you're bullshitting now. Maybe you're failing to make a distinction between feminist theories (many of which are bogus, and most of which have no practical use). I care for reality and for the fight against discrimination and inequalities.
As for the recurrent idea that I only have only one side of the story, I repeatedly said that my cousin was in the partner's board. He was there then the deliberations happened. He said it was bullshit. They specifically decided not to give her the partnership on the basis that she was pregnant. You argue that it's ok because capitalism. I say that your argument is bullshit by all civilized people's standards because capitalism is not a good way to justify the morality of something.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them.
On January 15 2014 04:45 ComaDose wrote: He doesn't agree that its morally terrible. and isn't it also illegal if proven?
How could I agree that it's morally terrible when I only know parts of the story?
What else do you need to know, if I might ask? I repeatedly told you what happened and why. The board made the decision not to give her the partnership on the assumption that her performance would decrease after having a child. I know this because, again, my cousin was sitting on the board. That's the "other part of the story". Their worries turned out to be unfounded, she's a very dedicated woman.
She lost an important opportunity because of her vagina. And capitalism doesn't justify discrimination even though you think it does.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them.
Is my cousin's wife a dumb squirrel bro? Fucking A. They assumed her performance would be bad because of a biological thing. It is discrimination to assume that.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job, as long as her physique is strong by female norms. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that. Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
It's somewhat similar. He's saying that Dj is biased and not using actual proof for his conclusions. No proof means can't women/blacks are discriminated against, no proof means feminists can't make conclusions about stuff.
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us.
Easiest thing for whites is just look at the huge difference in socioeconomic status between whites and minorities. It's pretty gigantic, and shows that while there may not be direct racism against the groups, there does exist some type of racism. It's harder for women, because deciding what measure you want to use can have hugely different effects. Do you take single men vs single women? A husband vs wife? What if a child is brought into the formula? You will probably not see a large socioeconomic difference between the sexes, because there aren't as many combinations to choose from.
There have been many studies that shows that kids tends to reach about the same socialeconomic status as their parents. White ppl in the ghettos doesn't have it easier than immigrants in the ghettos, unless there's language differences, which is often the case for 1st generation immigrants, but not for later generations. For instance, we had a lot of immigration from the former Yugoslavia here in Sweden, 20+ years ago, and that culture group had a really bad reputation here back then. Nowadays though, they have pretty much assimilated with the rest of us. Anyway, I'm talking about Sweden now, where education is completely free. In a country like USA it's different though, so it's not as easy there to rise above your parents socialeconomic class.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the law
An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
Just because it's in the laws, doesn't make it right. The only thing it accomplishes is that it encourages employers to ask their young women applicants if they're going to get pregnant anytime soon, and it encourages employers to come up with bullshit excuses for why they didn't hire a woman. If the businesses aren't as willing to hire pregnant women, it means that the law is siding with pregnant women against businesses, by forcing them to take too much of the responsibility. This law doesn't serve anyones cause.
On January 15 2014 04:45 ComaDose wrote: He doesn't agree that its morally terrible. and isn't it also illegal if proven?
How could I agree that it's morally terrible when I only know parts of the story?
What else do you need to know, if I might ask? I repeatedly told you what happened and why. The board made the decision not to give her the partnership on the assumption that her performance would decrease after having a child. I know this because, again, my cousin was sitting on the board. That's the "other part of the story". Their worries turned out to be unfounded, she's a very dedicated woman.
She lost an important opportunity because of her vagina. And capitalism doesn't justify discrimination even though you think it does.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them.
Is my cousin's wife a dumb squirrel bro? Fucking A. They assumed her performance would be bad because of a biological thing. It is discrimination to assume that.
If you want to disagree with me, fine, but don't be stupid. If a biological, genetic, etc factor can hold someone back from being optimal, then you obviously want the person who doesn't suffer from that. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a right thing, but it's pure logic. If you want to have laws to try and correct this, then it would be a law reducing the burden of child care and such, so that businesses will look at both men and women equally when a couple has a child. I don't know how to illustrate this without an example, so I'll just put this here this is not a direct comment on your cousin's wife, it's just to illustrate a point. You will assume that water will boil at 100 degree Celsius, and you have goo reason to do so. I would not call this discrimination. A mother has to take of her child (again, I don't know your paternity leave system), and pregnancy generally does have pretty big effects both right before and right after on a woman's body.
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote: L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence. Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the law
An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
Just because it's in the laws, doesn't make it right. The only thing it accomplishes is that it encourages employers to ask their young women applicants if they're going to get pregnant anytime soon, and it encourages employers to come up with bullshit excuses for why they didn't hire a woman. If the businesses aren't as willing to hire pregnant women, it means that the law is siding with pregnant women against businesses, by forcing them to take too much of the responsibility. This law doesn't serve anyones cause.
I'm going to assume your wrong because your ignorant and didn't read it not trying to be antagonizing on purpose.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
This isn't 1920
But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
This isn't 1920
But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
Well that's not completely crazy but some of your worries can be dealt with through adjustments whereas doing nothing leads to the old traditions and the old status quo to prevail. Again, your explanations are perfectly fine if we assume supply and demand and pure capitalism to be into play. Sadly for you, this is not the case anymore.
For one, businesses are now expected to have a social conscience. Also, businesses are expected to hire women and minorities. Putting responsibilities on companies is not a bad thing, especially things like this which are reasonable. Companies are capable of taking it, especially in a progressive society where women are now digging themselves out of the old traditions and whatnot.
I don't have all day so I'll cut this short, but there you go.
Let us assume the principles of capitalism hold true, and women are as capable as men in the workforce. Now, there will invariably be a large distribution of companies with varying policies towards women. Companies that give women equal opportunities compared to men, will have a twice the pool of talent to draw from. Thus, it logically follows that they can be expected to oust their competitors that are less keen on such policies. It is a perfectly valid argument.
However, this is obviously not the case, and hence one of our two premises must be suspect. It could be that capitalist principles are not actualised, and it is hard to displace traditional large conglomerates despite their terrible practices. It could also be that women are not capable as men in the workforce for some reason, say perhaps social conditioning from young discourages them from having their own strong opinions.
As long as the economic and educational systems are sensible, such problems will not arise.
Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
This isn't 1920
But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
I'm only going to respond to this post since your entire argument is summed up quite nicely here.
You write that "punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody". This is, as history as shown, utterly false. The very reason labor protection laws exist is that the rationale through which businesses will tend to treat their labor force when the said businesses are left unchecked is detrimental to the labor force and therefore to society in general. Your entire argument against laws preventing discrimination against women based on the possibility of them getting pregnant, and those insuring parental leave, is that businesses should be left unchecked to make the decisions they feel are the most cost-effective for them. Again, we, as a society, have decided that our collective welfare, through the welfare of our workers, is more important than letting businesses make every decision they want with regards to their workforce.
Protected workers are virtually always "less profitable" than unprotected workers. Your exact argument could therefore be used to defend removing the minimum wage: "why should we punish companies for not hiring a workforce that is more expensive than the guys willing to work for 2$ an hour?". It could be used to defend removing every form of employer healthcare insurance: "why should we punish companies for not hiring a less profitable workforce because of insurance, and offering work to those willing to work without insurance?". It could be used to defend removing health and safety standards in dangerous work environments: "why should we punish companies for not hiring those who aren't willing to work in dangerous environments without their personal safety being insured?". It could be used to defend removing virtually every single progress we've made as a society in terms of the protection of vulnerable workers and of human beings engaged in professional work in general.
The answer to your "whys" is therefore that we, as a society, have deemed that we benefit from these laws both collectively and individually. In this case, we have deemed that the interest of women in general trumps the interest of businesses with regards to the issue of possible pregnancies. We have deemed that removing barriers towards more gender equality in terms of opportunities (without contradicting merit-based selection in any way) is a positive step. And I'm glad we have.
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
The problem isnt that either group sticks up together the problem is the media that constantly tells women that they have to fight against men because men are holding them down and are evil.
Most of the people of one sex hold biases against people of the other sex, it only becomes a serious problem if you work them up against eachother in the media. Right now the "prime evil" is the white man. Everybody can hate on the white man and blame all wrongs on him while they are totally innocent and the victims of the white man. This also doesnt mean that you can assume the opposite it just means that there is not just black and white.
60years ago this was the total opposite, the media told men and women that the women is there to exist for the home and the children. Women are emotional and not rational and therefore not suited for the job. Men always held the belief that women are more emotional and now the media tells them this is true, so why apply any more critical thinking.
Today it is just the other way round, everybody is told white men are evil and so they believe it. People always fall into the same trap, just because something is accepted or fashionable to do doesnt make it right.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media. And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
Why are there not more documentations in the likes of "brainwash" by harald eia that put up genderstudies are other academic subject against eachother to stimulate critical thinking. This documentation had a huge impact on the genderstudies program in nordic countries. Most people had no clue what was going on in academics. I bet most people from other countries ever heard about this documentation, or ever heard about a similar documentation in their own country (even they even exist, what i seriously doubt). So why is that? How can there be two contradicting acadmic beliefs and nobody is talking about this?
All the intellectuals that are spreading this propaganda dont pay a price if it doesnt work out so they keep promoting this absurd ideas that are getting crazier every day.
So today women are told that if they have drunk sex they are raped and the man has to be the rapist, you even read that stufff here on the forum. Women are told that the only thing that keeps them from picking up a stem subject must be men holding them back. There is no personal responsibility involved, there are only victims and oppressors. But reality isnt that black and white.
On January 24 2014 13:45 Zaqwe wrote: Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes http://youtu.be/G_sGn6PdmIo
Now there's a blast from the past. RIP William F Buckley, Jr.
It's a reminder from ancient times to critically analyze conditions and causes, no matter the study. Single, never married different than somebody out of the workforce for 10-20 years.
It's a valid topic in society--women trying to have a highly paid career and marrying and having kids (or just having kids). Just let's keep dispassionate analysis of the data separate from some shock and awe wage gaps that ignore job experience.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media. And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
The recent book Men on Strike really spoke to this. The kinda unsaid male reaction to the perceived new(ish) norms.
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
The problem isnt that either group sticks up together the problem is the media that constantly tells women that they have to fight against men because men are holding them down and are evil.
which media are you referring to? I don't hear the on the news or read this in the papers and when i watch television and movies women are represented mostly as novelty sex characters. Do you have an example of media saying men are evil?
Most of the people of one sex hold biases against people of the other sex, it only becomes a serious problem if you work them up against eachother in the media. Right now the "prime evil" is the white man. Everybody can hate on the white man and blame all wrongs on him while they are totally innocent and the victims of the white man. This also doesnt mean that you can assume the opposite it just means that there is not just black and white.
actually right now most people tune in to watch old white men report about old white men everyday on the news and old white men run most of the large companies in the country. they choose whats on tv and they and their products are shown in a good light. People are not hating on the white man in public forums other than protests like wall street, which on the news is portrayed negatively. I think the hereditary wealth and power scheme does deserve some criticism.
60years ago this was the total opposite, the media told men and women that the women is there to exist for the home and the children. Women are emotional and not rational and therefore not suited for the job. Men always held the belief that women are more emotional and now the media tells them this is true, so why apply any more critical thinking.
Today it is just the other way round, everybody is told white men are evil and so they believe it. People always fall into the same trap, just because something is accepted or fashionable to do doesnt make it right.
I don't know why you think your opinion is unpopular. there are pages and pages of people saying the exact same thing as you. Who is told white men are evil by whom. like are you reading srs or watching the news and in the schools. At least you can admit that up till 60 years ago and for the rest of history women were mistreated but you need to realize its not over yet. "Why apply more critical thinking?" what. how is it fashionable to hate on the white man more than its fashionable to hate on feminists. hating on feminists has been fashionable so long its almost out of style. most people agree with you its not the other way around.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media.
example? cause im pretty sure feminist has a negative connotation to most people. and if you refer to feminists like they have some parliament and board of directors to decide what their next course of action should be you deserve to be corrected.
And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
it was blatantly unfair for hundreds of years already tho right. what is this fight breaking out you refer to? who do you think is spreading false propaganda in the media? like comercials are still telling women to buy kitchen appliances and be sex objects and movies are still telling women they need to be saved by prince charming. regardless of whether this is right or wrong its obvously not telling them white men are evil or feminists rule the world.
Why are there not more documentations in the likes of "brainwash" by harald eia that put up genderstudies are other academic subject against eachother to stimulate critical thinking. This documentation had a huge impact on the genderstudies program in nordic countries. Most people had no clue what was going on in academics. I bet most people from other countries ever heard about this documentation, or ever heard about a similar documentation in their own country (even they even exist, what i seriously doubt). So why is that? How can there be two contradicting acadmic beliefs and nobody is talking about this?
yes i also truely believe studying and being aware of gender issues is important! i personally lobbied to have gender studies remain in universities. but its getting cut from school programs all the time by the old white men that run them. and please dont think this is old white man bashing im just using it as a short form for the rich powerful people that own all the schools. im sure its just a coincidence that they are all old white men.
All the intellectuals that are spreading this propaganda dont pay a price if it doesnt work out so they keep promoting this absurd ideas that are getting crazier every day.
So today women are told that if they have drunk sex they are raped and the man has to be the rapist, you even read that stufff here on the forum. Women are told that the only thing that keeps them from picking up a stem subject must be men holding them back. There is no personal responsibility involved, there are only victims and oppressors. But reality isnt that black and white.
where do you see these messages can you give any examples of any of those statements in the media? It should be easy if we are being bombarded by it all the time. It sounds like you just took a few messages you read from an extreme feminist then critiqued them in extreme hyperbole as if they were on the public news. These messages you consider common place are rare and viewed by most people like you view them. These extremist views are unpopular for a good reason. most of them are dumb. hating based on colour or gender is always wrong. and neither gender is evil. feminism to me means anti-oppression against women. why not be a feminist and a masculinist. From my stand point the largest problem with feminism is that its viewed as some congealed mono-purpose organization where its actually mostly individuals.
Over half the global population is women and over half that population lives somewhere where women are treated worse than men.
If a quarter of the population of the planet being oppressed doesn't justify a movement to stop it i don't know what does. I don't assume someone would harass homosexuals just because they are christian even though there are people yelling about being christian and harassing homosexuals. there are people yelling about being feminists and that all men are evil. those are certainly stupid people. but I dont see that as evidence that a major clash is coming because there is an imbalance against men on the horizon or something. can you tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? And who is the master puppeteer behind the plot to brainwash the public with propaganda to make men suffer. Do you think wearing a tin foil hat will help?
On January 25 2014 05:28 rezoacken wrote: Maybe when both sides (feminists, masculists) heavily spit on the other group it means we have somewhat reached a state of equality...
A state of equality where both sides sucks just as much, just for different reasons.
Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
You will be surprised how little that means to more and more people unfortunately.
The SPLC does not classify the MRA subreddit as a hate group, but does list it as a site under the misogyny heading. Which I can't deny is very common in this subreddit, though there are some valuable things this community does.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
Though they aren't actually classified as a hate group, there is a strange bit of selective outrage. Men bitching about women/feminism is totally evil misogyny, but the equally common misandric comments on the feminism subreddit are totally fine.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
Though they aren't actually classified as a hate group, there is a strange bit of selective outrage. Men bitching about women/feminism is totally evil misogyny, but the equally common misandric comments on the feminism subreddit are totally fine.
Misandry isn't fine and it certainly isn't feminism. If you want MRAs to represent people who don't hate women go out there and reclaim them. I'll challenge any feminist who hates men.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
Though they aren't actually classified as a hate group, there is a strange bit of selective outrage. Men bitching about women/feminism is totally evil misogyny, but the equally common misandric comments on the feminism subreddit are totally fine.
Misandry isn't fine and it certainly isn't feminism. If you want MRAs to represent people who don't hate women go out there and reclaim them. I'll challenge any feminist who hates men.
I'm not really active in the MRA subreddit, but I follow it fairly casually, and I find it really isn't so bad. The community does have a minority of people who like to hate on women, but apart from that I find it quite an informative source about gender issues for men. I'm convinced the constant bashing of the community y feminist users and bloggers is pretty much entirely due to biases from ideology. If you support MRAs, you must be a misogynist, despite the fact that a majority of active users have fairly reasonable views.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
The term "rape-culture" is only bad because: "the more components we include within the concept, the less useful it becomes". The term was made useless when its definition started to include pretty much every area of misogyny and gender inequality. I see it as a marketing tool and nothing more.
That's not to say its components aren't of concern. Rape is by no means a social problem that we have under control. In many cases, rape is not sufficiently prosecuted or not prosecuted at all. Rape is acceptable to various extents in some groups of people. However those issues are too diverse and stem not only from cultural elements but also from legal difficulties as well as other stuff.
That's why I think calling it "rape culture" serves no purpose.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Bullshit feminists don't care about men. Most feminists I know and many not in person talk about gender roles and how it affects men unfairly. Everything from splitting the bill and dating to child custody, unfair situation of single fathers, and being raised with a specific attitude which may not be ideal to them.
Female feminists do not really get to talk about that because they are not men and most of them know they don't know anything about being male. Even if it is out of good intentions, I would be angry if women assumed they knew all the problems men face and knew what was best for us. Issues like that is where we come in and it is not the problem of feminism that these problems exist.
On January 26 2014 08:19 Shiragaku wrote: Bullshit feminists don't care about men. Most feminists I know and many not in person talk about gender roles and how it affects men unfairly. Everything from splitting the bill and dating to child custody, unfair situation of single fathers, and being raised with a specific attitude which may not be ideal to them.
Female feminists do not really get to talk about that because they are not men and most of them know they don't know anything about being male. Even if it is out of good intentions, I would be angry if women assumed they knew all the problems men face and knew what was best for us. Issues like that is where we come in and it is not the problem of feminism that these problems exist.
We had this discussion before, and I have little other than your personal assurances that feminism cares, it is not enough for me. Finding feminists that are friendly to men's issues is not is not as easy as it should be, and finding feminists that are extremely hostile to MRAs is, in contrast, very easy.
I do not much like the reasoning in the second part of your post. I think we live in society together, and trying to understand and form opinions about the challenges faced by each gender, regardless of your own, should be important. But I find that the view that men in feminism is fine as long as they are not very vocal is a common opinion in feminist communities. Support us, but shut the fuck up.
A common dismissal of men's issues is that all our problems are because of patriarchy aswell, and as soon as mighty feminism has destroyed it, all will be well for everyone. So men don't even have to try to fight for any of their own issues.
On January 26 2014 08:19 Shiragaku wrote: Bullshit feminists don't care about men. Most feminists I know and many not in person talk about gender roles and how it affects men unfairly. Everything from splitting the bill and dating to child custody, unfair situation of single fathers, and being raised with a specific attitude which may not be ideal to them.
Female feminists do not really get to talk about that because they are not men and most of them know they don't know anything about being male. Even if it is out of good intentions, I would be angry if women assumed they knew all the problems men face and knew what was best for us. Issues like that is where we come in and it is not the problem of feminism that these problems exist.
The problem is that SJWs are abusing all this "patriarchy" and "rape culture" shit do be racists themselves ofc for the greater good. Like every movement you will have radicals that are posting shit the problem with the SJWs and feminists is that noone within their movement or group calls them out on their bullshit.
Where were the prominant bloggers that criticized anita sarkeesian for her money grabbing, her statments that she doesnt like games or the fact that she didnt even play the games she used to criticize? Where were the prominant feminists that called out adria richards that she is a malicious person, making sexist jokes herself and then get 2 guys fired that made a nerdy joke that wasnt even adressed to her. Where were those prominant feminists that say getting asked for coffee in an elevator is not rape. Tell me where those feminists were? Nobody calls out bullshit, it is nothing like a fucking eco chamber were their point of view gets more radical each day.
But then again proof me wrong, show me prominant bloggers and twitterers (?) that are known feminists or SJWs that called such persons out. I guess you will have a really hard time finding them. More likely you will find a shitload of persons that defend those absolutely disgusting positions no matter what. So please show me articles on feminist websites that criticize such persons and call them out on that. I beg you to do so. The only thing you will find is nothing but praise for the jean darc that gets two guys fired for ridicilous nerdy joke while making dick jokes on her very own twitter. But making sexist joke is ok if you are a women and if you are a man and the joke is innocent were you interpret the "sexism" into then those men are literally the devil.
Then tell me again that most feminists are only good minded people and not delusional sheep that will accept anything their overlords tell them.
Every movement must be critical to itself otherwise you end up with a bunch of radicalized partisans that do nothing but thrive in their eco chambers and believe everything they say and is justified as long as a sufficient number of buzzwords is used.
On January 26 2014 08:19 Shiragaku wrote: Bullshit feminists don't care about men. Most feminists I know and many not in person talk about gender roles and how it affects men unfairly. Everything from splitting the bill and dating to child custody, unfair situation of single fathers, and being raised with a specific attitude which may not be ideal to them.
Send some of those feminists out here to California. They laugh off all mistreatment of men by the courts, society, and the government, claiming its somehow justified by the history of patriarchy, or simply deny the issue's importance. Export some of the free-thinking type. I've got enough in my area believing that woman can't sexually abuse children (or only do so when under the thumb of a man).
I do not much like the reasoning in the second part of your post. I think we live in society together, and trying to understand and form opinions about the challenges faced by each gender, regardless of your own, should be important. But I find the thought that the view that men in feminism is fine as long as they are not very vocal is a common opinion in feminist communities. Support us, but shut the fuck up.
I use to think this way as well, but more often than not when you open your mouth to speak about issues that you do not face at all, you start to sound pretty damn ridiculous. Read Native Son by Richard Wright and listen to how the white anti-racists treat the main character who is black. The theme for the white anti-racists and for white people in general, even those who are neutral is that they don't get it, no matter how sympathetic they may be. This does not mean you should shut up, but when group who is much more disenfranchised in one particular way, such as rape and harassment for women, it is generally a good idea listen which is something many allies fail to do. Of course, you have every right to speak out when you hear stuff that completely goes against common sense and I have seen plenty of that myself. One such topic is fat shaming which is really ugly once you start to see how cruel people can be. If you are a good humanist, you should naturally oppose all forms of discrimination, and that includes fat shaming.
However, sometimes I see feminists who state that there is nothing wrong with obesity (we are not talking being a little overweight here) and at that point, you should raise an objection, but if you are going to use the health argument, make sure you know your facts because they are often surprising.
A common dismissal of men's issues is that all our problems are because of patriarchy aswell, and as soon as mighty feminism has destroyed it, all will be well for everyone. So men don't even have to try to fight for any of their own issues.
Well I do think that many problems of men are rooted in patriarchy. For example, men are suppose to be tough, intimidating, and not girly. Another one is that men cannot show emotions or experiment with androgyny. And concerning "mighty feminism," I am assuming you are talking about women and it is not so. These are issues concerning men and it is saddening that more men are not concerned about such issues, especially one's related to parenting such as child custody.
Also Sokrates, I am not going to bother responding to you because I know damn well just by reading this thread that you pretty much ignore everything that is being said to you. You are like a Christian fundamentalist who can only see secularism as being anti-Christian and when it does not fit their picture of secularism, they try to re-frame it so it does.
I do not much like the reasoning in the second part of your post. I think we live in society together, and trying to understand and form opinions about the challenges faced by each gender, regardless of your own, should be important. But I find the thought that the view that men in feminism is fine as long as they are not very vocal is a common opinion in feminist communities. Support us, but shut the fuck up.
I use to think this way as well, but more often than not when you open your mouth to speak about issues that you do not face at all, you start to sound pretty damn ridiculous. Read Native Son by Richard Wright and listen to how the white anti-racists treat the main character who is black. The theme for the white anti-racists and for white people in general, even those who are neutral is that they don't get it, no matter how sympathetic they may be. This does not mean you should shut up, but when group who is much more disenfranchised in one particular way, such as rape and harassment for women, it is generally a good idea listen which is something many allies fail to do. Of course, you have every right to speak out when you hear stuff that completely goes against common sense and I have seen plenty of that myself. One such topic is fat shaming which is really ugly once you start to see how cruel people can be. If you are a good humanist, you should naturally oppose all forms of discrimination, and that includes fat shaming.
However, sometimes I see feminists who state that there is nothing wrong with obesity (we are not talking being a little overweight here) and at that point, you should raise an objection, but if you are going to use the health argument, make sure you know your facts because they are often surprising.
A common dismissal of men's issues is that all our problems are because of patriarchy aswell, and as soon as mighty feminism has destroyed it, all will be well for everyone. So men don't even have to try to fight for any of their own issues.
Well I do think that many problems of men are rooted in patriarchy. For example, men are suppose to be tough, intimidating, and not girly. Another one is that men cannot show emotions or experiment with androgyny. And concerning "mighty feminism," I am assuming you are talking about women and it is not so. These are issues concerning men and it is saddening that more men are not concerned about such issues, especially one's related to parenting such as child custody.
I pretty much agree with everything. Obviously I don't really care for the term patriarchy, but apart from that we seem to have little disagreement.
I'm not here to say you're going to like the way every MRA presents himself. I want anybody still open-minded about misandry in society, ala "It might exist but I haven't seen it," to critically examine some under-reported aspects. It will have no effect on any others.
Also Sokrates, I am not going to bother responding to you because I know damn well just by reading this thread that you pretty much ignore everything that is being said to you. You are like a Christian fundamentalist who can only see secularism as being anti-Christian and when it does not fit their picture of secularism, they try to re-frame it so it does.
What do i ignore? That you state that the "bad" feminists are the minority? You dont get my point.
My point is not that feminism is bad per se. My point is that the original idea of feminism gets perverted each day because it becomes more and more absurd due to the lack of opposition within their very own movement. That is why i hate feminism. Not that i hate women or i hate to see people adressing issues. My hate derives from the lack of critical thought within their very own community. It is nothing else than shit that happened a uncountable times in human history. Everything started off with "good intentions" and became a fucking nightmare.
To prove me wrong just do what i said in the post above. Show me the critical thought show me the calling out of persons that are NOT feminists but claim otherwise. You will find nothing.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
Feminists are against the patriarchy that holds traditional values such as women are the care givers and men provide the resources.
If feminism succeeds in its goal of breaking down traditional gender roles, then the legal system will have to consider each case on an individual level of what’s best for the children. Maybe it is best if the mother is the primary caregiver while the father pays. Maybe it’s the other way around.
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
The first instalment of my response to Danielle Paradis' and her very pat answers to the debate topic "Is Feminism hate?"
"First, you open your video with the quote that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts, and then you went on to say that you would, as a feminist, add "or her" to that quote. I agree. One of the reasons I do is that the primary architects of feminist theory--things like The Patriarchy, Rape Culture and the Patriarchal Terrorism Paradigm of family violence--those architects were primarily women, and they seemed to feel entitled to their own facts, or to something I'll call "selective facts". Given that, adding "or her"? That's a really good idea."
The idea of equality for women outside of biological differences is something that obviously cannot be argued against. However, in practice feminism has received a negative label due to the extremes of members. Moreover, feminists need to realize that men have some issues in terms of equality too and those need to be rooted out too.
The idea of feminism started as equality for both sexes to freely choose which gender they would like. Men allowed to be stay at home dads, women allowed to be ceos. Equal pay and equal opportunity.
Since it's startup there have been members that say they're feminists when they're actually shouting women are superior to men. Then you have men seeing that group and think that is what feminists truly are and saying feminism is wrong.
It is like any ideology/religion, you have extremists in it no matter what you are. Learn and understand the core beliefs and ignore the extremists. Don't let the attacks against men turn into witch trials and don't let the attacks against women go ignored.
If you see your boss pass a promotion onto a guy instead of the more qualified women that is working harder, speak up. If you work in the restaurant field as a line cook and your boss mistreats the female waiters or female line cooks. Speak up, if you aren't heard, speak to someone in the restaurant that will be heard, if it doesn't work, don't make money for an asshole(quit, you can find a job as a line cook anywhere these days). The only reason assholes remain able to be assholes is because we give them money. Easy enough to boycott with how many different options there are.
On January 26 2014 16:10 Housemd wrote: I think feminism, at its core, is a great idea.
The idea of equality for women outside of biological differences is something that obviously cannot be argued against. However, in practice feminism has received a negative label due to the extremes of members. Moreover, feminists need to realize that men have some issues in terms of equality too and those need to be rooted out too.
Feminists are aware that men have issues too and they want to fix them. Although it does get tiresome when you can't post about an issue facing women without someone immediately going "men are victims too!". That's great but not really relevant, like someone going "there are homeless people here too!" whenever you try to talk about the Syrian refugee crisis. MRA people, in my experience, most like to talk about men's issues while trying to engage in some strange "more oppressed than thou" competition which is just a shitty mentality to have.
On January 25 2014 22:43 gedatsu wrote: [quote] nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations.
Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science.
I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously?
And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't.
I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
On January 26 2014 18:38 Nacl(Draq) wrote: The idea of feminism started as equality for both sexes to freely choose which gender they would like. Men allowed to be stay at home dads, women allowed to be ceos. Equal pay and equal opportunity.
Since it's startup there have been members that say they're feminists when they're actually shouting women are superior to men. Then you have men seeing that group and think that is what feminists truly are and saying feminism is wrong.
It is like any ideology/religion, you have extremists in it no matter what you are. Learn and understand the core beliefs and ignore the extremists. Don't let the attacks against men turn into witch trials and don't let the attacks against women go ignored.
If you see your boss pass a promotion onto a guy instead of the more qualified women that is working harder, speak up. If you work in the restaurant field as a line cook and your boss mistreats the female waiters or female line cooks. Speak up, if you aren't heard, speak to someone in the restaurant that will be heard, if it doesn't work, don't make money for an asshole(quit, you can find a job as a line cook anywhere these days). The only reason assholes remain able to be assholes is because we give them money. Easy enough to boycott with how many different options there are.
That is a misrepresentation of the history of feminism. Feminism in its original form sought to attain equal rights for women and the theoretical foundation for what constitutes gender inequality was based upon how to women perceived society; their role in society and lived experience. And that is also why feminism will never be able to provide for a truly equal rights society - they simply neglect to look at how the other half of the population perceive society.
Outside of this you are obviously right - there are extremists and idiots in every ideology who taint it for the rest, and we are going to all have to change before society can become truly equal (no matter how you define 'equal').
On January 26 2014 01:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations.
Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science.
I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously?
And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't.
I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
That one about rape as a presumed crime is crazy. That's a return to witch hunts pure and simple. Is that actually happening in sweden?
On January 26 2014 03:18 gedatsu wrote: [quote] In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations.
Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science.
I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously?
And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't.
I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
That one about rape as a presumed crime is crazy. That's a return to witch hunts pure and simple. Is that actually happening in sweden?
It is not currently in place, but as far as I understand it is part of the agenda of some political parties or politicians. Perhaps someone actually from Sweden can comment, but I dont think it currently has much chance of being put into place. Regardless of that, I do think it illustrates some of the things some feminists have gotten onto the mainstream political agenda.
I would also like to call attention to rape policies on US university campuses. Tribunals of laymen take action against people (men) accused of rape, not holding to the principles of reasonable doubt and innocent untill proven guilty. By law, these officials are required to take action against people accused of rape or sexual harassement when they think there is a more than a 50% chance that they are guilty, effectively destroying their lives. I do think fighting sexual harassement and rape in schools is important, but this does not seem like justice to me. Despite this, there is rarely any criticism on these policies, nobody wants to piss off the feminists, and nobody wants to appear soft on rape.
Here is a perspective from a feminist whos son was accused.
Advocating such laws seem like a really good idea for someone until their own family gets involved. Like i stated here before, people will only learn to see the real face of feminism once it already got really ugly. But yeah the "bad" feminists are only the minority and have no impact at all.
There's usually a few cases every year covered in Swedish media about rapists getting away free on very vague grounds, to much public outcry. Just recently, a man was acquitted despite admitting to continuing having sex with a woman who said no several times, on the grounds that he 'thought she wanted to have violent sex', meaning saying no would be part of the act... There's always cases popping up where the woman have to prove she fought extra hard, or said no enough times, or bizarrely, prove that she was intoxicated enough to be taken advantage of. Swedish courts tend to be very lenient towards rapists, and it's not surprising people call for laws more beneficial towards the victims; I would say this is more the fault of the courts for doing fundamentally unfair judgments in regards to rape victims rather than a consequence of radical feminists lobbying.
The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
You sure it's not murder? I mean, in one case you're sexually assaulting someone and most likely causing a good amount of mental damage. In the other case, well, they're just dead. No mental damage I suppose, but no life either.
Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
You sure it's not murder? I mean, in one case you're sexually assaulting someone and most likely causing a good amount of mental damage. In the other case, well, they're just dead. No mental damage I suppose, but no life either.
I think most men would rather be known as a murderer than a rapist. There is more understanding for losing your shit and killing someone than there is for rape. I suppose it depends on the circumstances, and I could be wrong, but I think this is accurate.
Don't forget to mention that the "polemist" worked for the French "Front national" for a few years, an extreme right-wing party, and left the party not because he disagreed with them but because he did not receive a position high enough in the hierarchy. He's clearly anti-feminist and has very little respect for women overall. He's also made anti-Semitic and anti-immigration comments in the past.
Don't forget to mention that the "polemist" worked for the French "Front national" for a few years, an extreme right-wing party, and left the party not because he disagreed with them but because he did not receive a position high enough in the hierarchy. He's clearly anti-feminist and has very little respect for women overall. He's also made anti-Semitic and anti-immigration comments in the past.
Over 25% of French youth (18-24) support the Front National, it's not an "extreme right-wing" party. Besides, it's your right in France to be anti-immigration and anti-jewish, as long as you don't call to violence or blind hatred.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
THE CLAIM Close to half or even more of the sexual assaults reported by women never occurred. Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped. Such claims are also sometimes made by men involved in court custody battles.
THE REALITY This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were “false.” But Kanin’s methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings. Kanin researched only one unnamed Midwestern town, and he did not spell out the criteria police used to decide an allegation was false. The town also polygraphed or threatened to polygraph all alleged victims, a now-discredited practice that is known to cause many women to drop their complaint even when it is true. In fact, most studies that suggest high rates of false accusations make a key mistake — equating reports described by police as “unfounded” with those that are false. The truth is that unfounded reports very often include those for which no corroborating evidence could be found or where the victim was deemed an unreliable witness (often because of drug or alcohol use or because of prior sexual contact with the attacker). They also include those cases where women recant their accusations, often because of a fear of reprisal, a distrust of the legal system or embarrassment because drugs or alcohol were involved. The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
Ignoring the 10-50% thing, what exactly is the significance of "It is a 100% women practice."
Also I see no reason why the prevalence of false accusations should cause leniency for those who are deemed guilty.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
I don't see 10-50% in the link you posted; most studies in it seem to agree it's less than 10%, others being biased by using subjective police reports as material. It's the belief that victims must behave in a certain way, be dressed in a certain way, fight to a certain degree and other weird expectations that lets people of the hook despite obvious guilt. As an example, in Sweden, which seems to be seen as some weird feminist controlled socialist state by some people, there were 4134 reported rapes in 2010, 313 went to court, and of those 33% of the accused were acquitted. That's hardly a statistic that favors the victims when the studies you linked show less than 10% false accusations.
Don't forget to mention that the "polemist" worked for the French "Front national" for a few years, an extreme right-wing party, and left the party not because he disagreed with them but because he did not receive a position high enough in the hierarchy. He's clearly anti-feminist and has very little respect for women overall. He's also made anti-Semitic and anti-immigration comments in the past.
Over 25% of French youth (18-24) support the Front National, it's not an "extreme right-wing" party. Besides, it's your right in France to be anti-immigration and anti-jewish, as long as you don't call to violence or blind hatred.
Uh, yes it is an extreme right-wing party. And exactly like farvacola said, you have the right to hold any opinion you want in your head, but that doesn't mean some opinions aren't despicable.
On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote: The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?.
As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me.
I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote: The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?.
As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me.
I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence.
There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape.
EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
Where exactly did you pull this stat?
Following this case and in order further to support prosecutors in their decision making, I published new legal guidance on perverting the course of justice in July 2011. For a period of 17 months, I also required CPS areas to refer all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape, domestic violence, or both, to me personally to consider. This report outlines the key findings from the review of those cases and the steps that we plan to take. Importantly, what it shows is that charges brought for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time for such "false" allegations need to be considered in the context of the total number of prosecutions brought for those offences. In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
Also, there seems to be a misconception on how many rapists actually get placed into jail. People believe that there are many men in prison that have been falsely accused for whatever reason which is just not true. Here is a chilling statistic just to prove this.
The majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.
On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote: Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back. Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently.
False accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
Following this case and in order further to support prosecutors in their decision making, I published new legal guidance on perverting the course of justice in July 2011. For a period of 17 months, I also required CPS areas to refer all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape, domestic violence, or both, to me personally to consider. This report outlines the key findings from the review of those cases and the steps that we plan to take. Importantly, what it shows is that charges brought for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time for such "false" allegations need to be considered in the context of the total number of prosecutions brought for those offences. In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
Also, there seems to be a misconception on how many rapists actually get placed into jail. People believe that there are many men in prison that have been falsely accused for whatever reason which is just not true. Here is a chilling statistic just to prove this.
The majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.
Considering that the western judicial system is built upon the concept of "rather let 10 guilty walk then condemning 1 innocent" I think it is a very reasonable perception that there are too many innocent in jail even if the number is only 1.
On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote: The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?.
As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me.
I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence.
There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape.
EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem.
bruises? torn clothes (with assaulters dna) ? A gun/knife (if there are no bruises)?
On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote: The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?.
As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me.
I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence.
There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape.
EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem.
bruises? torn clothes (with assaulters dna) ? A gun/knife (if there are no bruises)?
My gf happens to have bruises half the time from various sports and stuff. She plays softball and other things. "Weapons" are not necessarily indicative of rape and one of the problems is that they can be put away. Clothes can be torn in general too, at least that's what a defense lawyer would bring up if his client is pleading not guilty.
My understanding is that certain doctors in hospitals are trained to do the forensics after a rape happens. I have no clue how they do it. Besides that, prosecution is outrageously difficult.
A lot of situations don't fit the conventional home invasion knife at throat with the chaste woman scratching her rapist to protect her virtue narrative but still qualify as rape. If you insist that it needs the above to be rape then you end up disqualifying the awful crimes inflicted to a lot of victims, or worse, blaming them for their rape not following your idea of what a rape should be. Now obviously a balance needs to be struck and I'm in no way suggesting that we lower the standard of evidence for rape, I'm completely okay with the police saying "look, we've interviewed the guy and lacking any further evidence we don't have enough to pursue this because he insists it's consensual, we'll pass you onto our trauma support people and we'll log the accusation but we don't have enough to prosecute". But it's definitely wrong to say "if there aren't X then it's not rape" because it just doesn't work that way.
Regarding suing back, I imagine you could try but you'd run into the same problem because the court would again find that they cannot prove that it didn't take place. Insufficient proof to secure a conviction of rape does not amount to sufficient proof that there was a malicious false accusation of rape.
On January 26 2014 01:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations.
Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science.
I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously?
And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't.
I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
You said it yourself and I agree with Kwark's post that MRA's at times focus more on derailing feminism rather then focusing on issues. There are problems for men such as...
to graduate from college, attain a high GPA, be active in extracurricular organizations or seek leadership roles; or why men in general have always been more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system or be homeless. These are real issues, surely, and things our society should work to correct.
(quote from popular feminist blog) but why do MRA's have to attack and blame feminism for these problems? Both groups are constantly battling each other with fire, but nobody knows who shot first. A voice for men for example is vehemently against feminism
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/whats-the-difference/ In this post (linked from sidebar of r/mensrights) it states "there can't be a common ground". So is mens rights trying to be the main solution for society and dismiss feminists? I think we both can agree that is simply ignorant and silly.
To me the mens rights movement is laughable because it's more concerned about fighting feminism and being the most oppressed group rather then actually do anything to support men. You stated that we can have both movements, but MRA's clearly disagree, why is that? Just reading from popular blogs on feminism about mens issues I agree that at times mens issues are underplayed within the movement, but feminism still benefits men even if they aren't directly solving all of mens issues. I just believe that the mens rights movement is not effective in solving any problems that men face in our society. I also think it is perfectly justifiable to criticize r/mensrights when for the top posts all they do is derail feminists because why can't they ignore the "hate" from "rad-fems" and just highlight issues in the world. One movement is trying to empower women and equal the playing field between women and men (feminism) and the other is attempting to remove feminism and promote more mens rights I just don't understand how that possibly can make sense to anyone. If mens rights didn't seem to be pushing such a heavy agenda then I would be perfectly fine with it because like I and many feminists agree that there are mens issues and feminism doesn't deal with all of them, but why do MRA's have to attack feminism in the process? They aren't only attacking radicals too they are criticizing the entire movement even though they look to do similar things so it's not like I'm saying feminists can't be criticized etc.
Because they don't share the perfectly fluffy definition of feminism that we have. And it's not just radfems and other transmisogynists, perfectly (otherwise) reasonable women and women's interest groups oppose attempts at the removing of gendered terms or inequalities in law all the time if it is felt that an equal law would be too damaging for women.
Things like neutral language in rape laws and legal parental surrender are always opposed by somebody or other. And we might say, 'that's not really a feminist or feminism', but you're just talking about the definition of words. If you say the things they oppose aren't really feminism, you're also saying they don't really oppose feminism.
There are a huge amount of people drawn to MRA movements trying desperately to cling to their misogyny and legitimise it and it's a big problem, but it's not like it's any easier to deal with than transphobia and misandry within feminism.
On January 26 2014 03:18 gedatsu wrote: [quote] In that case you should stop listening to SPLC. I spend some time in that subreddit, very rarely do I come across any hatred of women. Whenever I see it, it is almost always being downvoted. I do come across a lot of harsh criticism of feminism and individual feminists, but most of it is warranted.
Really? These threads don't seem that rare to me. It only takes a couple seconds of reading to find something ridiculous being upvoted to the top.
What is wrong with those threads?
(I think the spamming of the rape form is very questionable, but I do think the way extra-legal way rape claims are investigated and judged is quite evil)
There are obviously other examples as well, these links took me only a couple of minutes to compile and give you a scope of what r/mensrights is.
Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming.
In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part
I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something.
That top photo has always bothered me! Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset
http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg
These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible".
I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone.
I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL.
I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this.
I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what?
The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example.
You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues?
But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right?
Citation needed...
I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous.
I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations.
Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science.
I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously?
And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't.
I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
You said it yourself and I agree with Kwark's post that MRA's at times focus more on derailing feminism rather then focusing on issues. There are problems for men such as...
to graduate from college, attain a high GPA, be active in extracurricular organizations or seek leadership roles; or why men in general have always been more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system or be homeless. These are real issues, surely, and things our society should work to correct.
(quote from popular feminist blog) but why do MRA's have to attack and blame feminism for these problems? Both groups are constantly battling each other with fire, but nobody knows who shot first. A voice for men for example is vehemently against feminism
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/whats-the-difference/ In this post (linked from sidebar of r/mensrights) it states "there can't be a common ground". So is mens rights trying to be the main solution for society and dismiss feminists? I think we both can agree that is simply ignorant and silly.
To me the mens rights movement is laughable because it's more concerned about fighting feminism and being the most oppressed group rather then actually do anything to support men. You stated that we can have both movements, but MRA's clearly disagree, why is that? Just reading from popular blogs on feminism about mens issues I agree that at times mens issues are underplayed within the movement, but feminism still benefits men even if they aren't directly solving all of mens issues. I just believe that the mens rights movement is not effective in solving any problems that men face in our society. I also think it is perfectly justifiable to criticize r/mensrights when for the top posts all they do is derail feminists because why can't they ignore the "hate" from "rad-fems" and just highlight issues in the world. One movement is trying to empower women and equal the playing field between women and men (feminism) and the other is attempting to remove feminism and promote more mens rights I just don't understand how that possibly can make sense to anyone. If mens rights didn't seem to be pushing such a heavy agenda then I would be perfectly fine with it because like I and many feminists agree that there are mens issues and feminism doesn't deal with all of them, but why do MRA's have to attack feminism in the process? They aren't only attacking radicals too they are criticizing the entire movement even though they look to do similar things so it's not like I'm saying feminists can't be criticized etc.
I think your argument is reasonable. The movement as a whole is too dismissive of feminism as a whole. I think the whole "more opressed than you" thing is counter productive.
But my opinion of feminist activism is very low for similar reasons. Casual feminists with reasonable opinions are a majority, but they are a silent majority. They don't speak out against the radicals, self-criticism is not something the movement does. It is completely closed to criticism from the outside, feminism does not tolerate dissent. Defense against criticism is apparently easy: if you are not a feminist, then you are a bigot, what else is there?. Dismissing or triviliazing the problems of men is very common, and a great source of comedy for even casual feminists.
Those are the main reasons MRAs are so hostile to feminism. Clearly most active members are not opposed to gender equality for women, they just want gender equality for men too. The goal is not to destroy feminism, but to bring attention to the detrimental effects the movement too often has. You can't say the same about the feminist attitude to MRAs, they don't think men have any right or reason to fight for gender issues, because as soon as feminism destroys the patriarchy there won't be any problems anyway.
I am not going to list all of the things MRAs are fighting for, but almost all of them should be legitimate goals in anyone's eyes. You accept that the feminist movement has many flaws, yet you are supportive of the movement as a whole because, ultimately, they are fighting for gender equality. Why don't you show the same courtesy to MRAs?
By now the feminist movement has alienated many, if not most, women. I bet if you were to ask around, a majority of women would say they are not feminists, for the reasons I have described above.
Edit: On the topic of common ground. I think there is plenty, and I am not impressed with the arguments in the article you linked. But I do think there is a need for two movements, feminism is not effective at addressing men's issues.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services). You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ? And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
And his point about Simone de Beauvoir is just spot on, anybody who tried to put in perspective her "philosophical" work with her lifestyle would come to the same conclusion. We are talking about a girl who used her position as a teacher to seduce students (something that I personally cannot accept), it's nothing but domination.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system).
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services).
The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women?
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ?
The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system).
In theory it is unrelated, but in practice it is not. Most feminists arguments - and I'm not talking about gender studies, or academic feminist, who are trying to adress both those problems since more than 40 years, but feminists as we see in the media - put social class aside, when they argue that there are not enough women in positions of power, or when they show that women are more touched by half time jobs, or when they point out that women are less paid than their men counter part. We always put aside the class aspect of most matters in the dialectique of genders, and that is, in my opinion, a problem.
Btw, I'm not saying that the arguments that there are gender inequalities is responsible of the fact that we put aside the class aspect, I'm saying the legitimacy of feminist argument in main stream media is, like he said, in part due to the fact that it goes with the interest of the dominant class. If all "main stream feminists" were constantly making sure that people understands that a fight for more equality between genders cannot go without a fight for more equality in our society as a whole, like black feminists were saying a long time ago, then I don't think anybody would actually criticize their point aside from "masculinists" and conservatives (which Soral is btw).
The only sad thing here is the current situation of the country. I can understand to some extend why Soral is getting more insane and paranoid every day. It's like if the whole country got schizophrenia or something lol. I blame unemployement and politicians getting bad at the lying game.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system).
I already acknowledged that characterizing feminism as founded on marxist principles of class warfare is not fair. But it is absurd to suggest that the idea of men as oppressors is not influential in feminism. To say that that the bourgeois origins of feminism has nothing to do with the feminist movement is also dishonest. It is relevant because it helps us understand the kind of things feminism fights. They want more women among the elite in the west: CEOs, engineer etc. but are little concerned about what goes on on the lower end of the social ladder.
In my opinion this shows the kind of naivety Soral is talking about. I believe the lack of female CEOs is merely a symptom that is indicative of more deeply rooted gender inequality that has a lot to do with unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights. I do not believe quota for CEOs and other elite positions will do anything meaningful to improve the position of the vast majority of women, to suggest that advantaging the female elite will cause some trickle down effect that will improve the position of the average working woman is naive to me.
Yet, feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men. Something that in my opinion can actually do something to improve gender inequality by changing the perceptions about parental responsibilities through real institutional change.
I don't want to comment on problems with capitalist systems, I am not interested in debating it here, and honestly I don't see the relevance.
Edit: I also can't really comment on the achievements of feminism. I would need to hear a reasoned argument for why you think feminism as an intellectual or activist movement has achieved anything at all.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system).
In theory it is unrelated, but in practice it is not. Most feminists arguments - and I'm not talking about gender studies, or academic feminist, who are trying to adress both those problems since more than 40 years, but feminists as we see in the media - put social class aside, when they argue that there are not enough women in positions of power, or when they show that women are more touched by half time jobs, or when they point out that women are less paid than their men counter part. We always put aside the class aspect of most matters in the dialectique of genders, and that is, in my opinion, a problem.
Btw, I'm not saying that the arguments that there are gender inequalities is responsible of the fact that we put aside the class aspect, I'm saying the legitimacy of feminist argument in main stream media is, like he said, in part due to the fact that it goes with the interest of the dominant class. If all "main stream feminists" were constantly making sure that people understands that a fight for more equality between genders cannot go without a fight for more equality in our society as a whole, like black feminists were saying a long time ago, then I don't think anybody would actually criticize their point aside from "masculinists" and conservatives (which Soral is btw).
I replied to your points in the edit of my previous message.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system).
I already acknowledged that characterizing feminism as founded on marxist principles of class warfare is not fair. But it is absurd to suggest that the idea of men as oppressors is not influential in feminism. To say that that the bourgeois origins of feminism has nothing to do with the feminist movement is also dishonest. It is relevant because it helps us understand the kind of things feminism fights. They want more women among the elite in the west: CEOs, engineer etc. but are little concerned about what goes on on the lower end of the social ladder.
In my opinion this shows the kind of naivety Soral is talking about. I believe the lack of female CEOs is merely a symptom that is indicative of more deeply rooted gender inequality that has a lot to do with unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights. I do not believe quota for CEOs and other elite positions will do anything meaningful to improve the position of the vast majority of women, to suggest that advantaging the female elite will cause some trickle down effect that will improve the position of the average working woman is naive to me.
Yet, feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men. Something that in my opinion can actually do something to improve gender inequality by changing the perceptions about parental responsibilities through real institutional change.
I don't want to comment on problems with capitalist systems, I am not interested in debating it here, and honestly I don't see the relevance.
Edit: I also can't really comment on the achievements of feminism. I would need to hear a reasoned argument for why you think feminism as an intellectual or activist movement has achieved anything at all.
I feel like you're trying to steer the discussion away from Soral's video when that is what I was addressing. I'll repeat: the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. Just like the social rights movement in the US was against the system as it was and not against whites. If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement". I said that the problems Soral sees with feminism with regards to how women from lower classes fare in the capitalistic system are unrelated to feminism and lie with the capitalistic system itself. The exact same types of problems can be found for men from lower classes, and Soral is trying to pin the blame on feminism for those woes now affecting women when 1) they would affect women regardless of feminism, and 2) feminism is not to blame - the economic system we live in is.
You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well.
I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case.
With regards to the problems with capitalist systems, the relevance was that Soral is blaming feminism for phenomenas which are actually consequences of our economic system being capitalist. Imagine a population X who had been discriminated against and prevented from using public transports. Movement A fights for the rights of X, and gets them to be able to use public transports. Then comes along Soral, who says that there are plenty of problems with public transports, which population X now suffers from as well, and blames movement A for population X suffering from these public transports problems. The point is that the fault lies not with movement A, which fought for equality of rights and opportunities, but with the state of the public transports.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement".
I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement.
If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you?
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well.
I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case.
Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement".
I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement.
Actually, what is dishonest is to look for specific individuals in order to discredit a broader social movement.
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you?
This is irrelevant to what was being discussed and I am not interested in addressing it further.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well.
I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned.
No they're not, and I explained why neither is an actual example of naivety.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case.
Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it.
I thought you were talking about parental rights such as a gender-neutral parental leave (which I don't see feminists protesting against at all, quite the opposite) - are you specifically talking about legal rights in terms of child custody? I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment on the positions of the most active feminist organizations, but my understanding is that there is no discrimination between genders in the laws regulating child custody, but that some father-rights groups denounce the existence of certain biases towards mothers in practice. I don't think I've ever heard a major feminist organization defend the introduction of pro-mothers amendments in child custody laws (I have, however, heard debates on the links between shared custody and the scope of reductions in child support, which is another issue). In any case, it hardly contradicts the fact that feminists have denounced and acted on fundamental gender roles, in plenty of domains. In fact, the influence of feminism, and the work done by feminists, were absolutely key in the development of gender studies.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement".
I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement.
Actually, what is dishonest is to look for specific individuals in order to discredit a broader social movement.
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you?
This is irrelevant to what was being discussed and I am not interested in addressing it further.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well.
I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned.
No they're not, and I explained why neither is an actual example of naivety.
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case.
Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it.
I thought you were talking about parental rights such as a gender-neutral parental leave (which I don't see feminists protesting against at all, quite the opposite) - are you specifically talking about legal rights in terms of child custody? I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment on the positions of the most active feminist organizations, but my understanding is that there is no discrimination between genders in the laws regulating child custody, but that some father-rights groups denounce the existence of certain biases towards mothers in practice. I don't think I've ever heard a major feminist organization defend the introduction of pro-mothers amendments in child custody laws (I have, however, heard debates on the links between shared custody and the scope of reductions in child support, which is another issue). In any case, it hardly contradicts the fact that feminists have denounced and acted on fundamental gender roles, in plenty of domains. In fact, the influence of feminism, and the work done by feminists, were absolutely key in the development of gender theory.
Here you can read about child custody rights, or lack thereof, for men. You will notice that many non-radical feminist organizations oppose shared custody. I see this as the greatest failure of feminism.
I acknowledge that feminism supports parternity leave, and that is a very good thing, it is obviousy in the best interest of women.
I will invest some time in reading up on feminist gender theory, not sure what it even means right now.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned.
Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? Those people got jailed for their ideas, just sayin'. Soral looks like a centrist compared to them lol.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned.
Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? (People who actually got jailed for their ideas, just sayin')
Yes. Your point being? (and we're going completely off-topic)
edit: just saw your edit - that there are other people even further to the right of Soral doesn't change the fact that he is still at the extreme-right with regards to what I mentioned. Following your logic, if I looked at someone even worse than the FN, it would mean the FN would no longer belong to the extreme-right, which is retarded.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned.
Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? (People who actually got jailed for their ideas, just sayin')
Yes. Your point being? (and we're going completely off-topic)
That Soral isn't at the extreme right of the spectrum ?
Also idk what so extreme about MLP's FN these days. They are trying sooooooo hard to look respectable and serious lol. But if you just want to label people w/e.
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal.
None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary.
Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances.
Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha.
I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right.
Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ?
Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens.
Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive.
No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned.
Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? (People who actually got jailed for their ideas, just sayin')
Yes. Your point being? (and we're going completely off-topic)
That Soral isn't at the extreme right of the spectrum ?
Also idk what so extreme about MLP's FN these days. They are trying sooooooo hard to look respectable and serious lol. But if you just want to label people w/e.
I don't "just want to label people". I put a name on the positions and ideologies held in a political party which, despite new packaging, still espouses much of the same beliefs than in its past (except on the economy, in which the extremely neoliberal stance has given way to a populist anti-system - albeit still nationalistic - discourse). There's a difference between "trying [...] hard to look respectable" and actually abandoning the rampant xenophobia which is still an integral foundation of the policies it defends. Regarding Soral, I gave you examples of issues for which he is clearly at the extreme-right of the spectrum, and he was at the FN himself (before the repackaging even began, btw).
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement".
I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement.
Actually, what is dishonest is to look for specific individuals in order to discredit a broader social movement.
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you?
This is irrelevant to what was being discussed and I am not interested in addressing it further.
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote:
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well.
I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned.
No they're not, and I explained why neither is an actual example of naivety.
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote:
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case.
Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it.
I thought you were talking about parental rights such as a gender-neutral parental leave (which I don't see feminists protesting against at all, quite the opposite) - are you specifically talking about legal rights in terms of child custody? I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment on the positions of the most active feminist organizations, but my understanding is that there is no discrimination between genders in the laws regulating child custody, but that some father-rights groups denounce the existence of certain biases towards mothers in practice. I don't think I've ever heard a major feminist organization defend the introduction of pro-mothers amendments in child custody laws (I have, however, heard debates on the links between shared custody and the scope of reductions in child support, which is another issue). In any case, it hardly contradicts the fact that feminists have denounced and acted on fundamental gender roles, in plenty of domains. In fact, the influence of feminism, and the work done by feminists, were absolutely key in the development of gender theory.
Here you can read about child custody rights, or lack thereof, for men. You will notice that many non-radical feminist organizations oppose shared custody. I see this as the greatest failure of feminism.
I acknowledge that feminism supports parternity leave, and that is a very good thing, it is obviousy in the best interest of women.
I will invest some time in reading up on feminist gender theory, not sure what it even means right now.
Child custody rights are obviously fucked up and are built on set gender roles of caregiver and breadwinner that have no place in a modern society. It is the blame of one feminist, Caroline Norton, who, after being denied access to her children on the basis of her gender, felt the best option was to come up with the tender years doctrine where instead men were denied access to their children on the basis of their gender. The hypocrisy of this is obviously indefensible and it no longer has any legal standing, having been held to violate the 14th amendment in the US and "The Principles of European Family Law" in the EU. However, as with many other gender roles, the entrenchment is sufficient that despite lacking any legal basis discrimination continues to happen. In that regard it's actually a pretty good example of why gender issues can't simply be dismissed by a single piece of legislation.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services).
The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women?
I agree with you overall, but you know the French revolution was quite a disaster, completly discarded by most XIXth century leftist as a revolution for and by bourgeois. By contrast, the episode of "La commune" is describe as a real revolution of the worker class. That we all accept feminism as social progress doesn't mean it is not something that needs to be pushed further, just like I consider the french revolution as a huge part of France's history, without considering that it is a religious event free of any critic.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ?
The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women.
Why front national ? Just read Marx and the idea of starvation wage : if one person in the household is working, the starvation wage must be high enough to keep the familly alive. I'm completly disregarding any economic theory because I don't believe at all that wages are defined by economic matters but by social matters (like Smith, Ricardo and Marx). One good proof for that is that when women accessed to position in power, like in legal department, we saw a decrease in overall wage that was, from my point of view, due to the fact that women have less bargaining power than men.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over.
Women entering the workforce was welcomed by dominant class, and needed, in time of war. What was difficult to accept for societies is to open positions of power and well paid positions to women.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis.
Maybe I didn't listened enough.
I agree with most of your point, I'm not saying that feminism was a regression in any way nor that it is responsible for anything bad in regards to inequalities between class or race. But I still think that within feminism there are various point of view, and that some of them are indeed strictly defined by bourgeois values.
For exemple, french marxists (like Michel Clouscard) back in the eighties were pointing out that the consumption/marketing model of capitalism brought by America (with the Marshall plan) forced France to become a "fully" capitalist nation while it was, before, defined by old traditions free of the "marketing" aspect of things. Now I completly agree with that argument, but it does not mean that I think that the traditional society that we were prior to the capitalism of "seduction" was actually a better society. I actually think Soral stole most of his argument from Clouscard's book.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services).
The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women?
I agree with you overall, but you know the French revolution was quite a disaster, completly discarded by most XIXth century leftist as a revolution for and by bourgeois. By contrast, the episode of "La commune" is describe as a real revolution of the worker class. That we all accept feminism as social progress doesn't mean it is not something that needs to be pushed further, just like I consider the french revolution as a huge part of France's history, without considering that it is a religious event free of any critic.
I never said that aspects of feminist thinking cannot be criticized - in fact, as we both know, feminism as a whole is made of plenty of currents which do not necessarily agree with each other on plenty of things. My point was that the argument that feminism should be discarded because it benefits bourgeois women is flawed, because 1) it does not only benefit bourgeois women, and 2) the reason it can "benefit" bourgeois women more is found in the system in which feminism finds itself and not in feminism.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ?
The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women.
Why front national ? Just read Marx and the idea of starvation wage : if one person in the household is working, the starvation wage must be high enough to keep the familly alive. I'm completly disregarding any economic theory because I don't believe at all that wages are defined by economic matters but by social matters (like Smith, Ricardo and Marx). One good proof for that is that when women accessed to position in power, like in legal department, we saw a decrease in overall wage that was, from my point of view, due to the fact that women have less bargaining power than men.
Yes, they are indeed determined by social variables as well, which is precisely an aspect of feminist struggle - pushing those variables in the right direction. But what I was saying was that the thought experiment "let's take our society without women working, all other things being equal, and see how wages look" doesn't work, because without women working our society wouldn't look the same in the first place. Besides, let's admit for one second that you could make that experiment, and that society would be the same except that men would have doubled their wages. Why should men be the ones with jobs in the first place? Why shouldn't men stop working in order for women to have their "doubled wages"? The root of the argument that women should not be working is inherently sexist (I think we agree on that).
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over.
Women entering the workforce was welcomed by dominant class, and needed, in time of war. What was difficult to accept for societies is to open positions of power and well paid positions to women.
Yes, but Soral is precisely subsuming "accessing positions of power", and the rest of what feminists have fought for in terms of working rights and opportunities for women, under "entering the workforce", as if all of it had been welcomed by the "system".
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis.
Maybe I didn't listened enough.
I agree with most of your point, I'm not saying that feminism was a regression in any way nor that it is responsible for anything bad in regards to inequalities between class or race. But I still think that within feminism there are various point of view, and that some of them are indeed strictly defined by bourgeois values.
For exemple, french marxists (like Michel Clouscard) back in the eighties were pointing out that the consumption/marketing model of capitalism brought by America (with the Marshall plan) forced France to become a "fully" capitalist nation while it was, before, defined by old traditions free of the "marketing" aspect of things. Now I completly agree with that argument, but it does not mean that I think that the traditional society that we were prior to the capitalism of "seduction" was actually a better society. I actually think Soral stole most of his argument from Clouscard's book.
Like I said, there are absolutely various points of view within feminism, but that's exactly what Soral is not saying in order to discard "feminism" as a whole. And again, the woes he accuses this "bourgeois feminism" of find their origin in the capitalist system as it works in our societies and not in the feminism he mentions. If there were no women on Earth, the exact same woes would exist, as they are found today, i.e. afflicting the poorer classes. Feminism, any part of it, is not to blame.
I don't know why you bring up the pithy anecdotes about feminism. You're not going to argue someone into believing that mainstream feminism is more about preserving and advancing female privilege than otherwise admitted or that it ignores women of color using those straw men arguments.
On February 11 2014 21:16 Danglars wrote: I don't know why you bring up the pithy anecdotes about feminism. You're not going to argue someone into believing that mainstream feminism is more about preserving and advancing female privilege than otherwise admitted or that it ignores women of color using those straw men arguments.
Exactly this. If someone wants to talk about feminism, they, and feminists themselves need to realize an important fact: Some people are dicks, and some people are stupid. This means that some feminists are dicks, and don't understand what feminism is about. It's a sad misunderstanding that leads to a lot of the bad feelings towards feminism I think, where some "feminists" will claim things that is totally not in line with what feminism is all about. Feminism /is/ about equalizing society, where there is a lot of inbuilt sexism, and indeed, racism. This does not mean that there are /no/ cases where men are worse off, but feminists would argue that there is still gross unfairness towards women within society. This does not necessarily mean the law, or money, but it could mean something as simple as separating boys and girls in sports as early as primary school, where there is no reason to. This, as you can note, is something that effects males and females, and is not an attempt to demonize the male population. The documentary in the OP is interesting that it notes the women being given an advantage in the race, feminists would argue that this IS in fact unfair, and there should not be an inherent advantage given to either sex. In fact, giving an advantage to the women is an example of sexism, whereby women are assumed to need more time. This again is an example of where the issue of feminism effects both sexes, and is again a case where the male population is not being demonized for being male.
I agree with Zealos for the most part. I personally find it frustrating when I see women showing/linking web articles that pretty much poke fun at men who argue that they have been victims in some way, with the article (or opinion piece, really) making the guys look like petty sooks, just because overall women have suffered more etc. etc. While that may be true, ignoring what the men who may have been mistreated say is only working against equality and some of the women that link such articles, normally capable of plenty of showing reason and perspective, suddenly seem to lose those traits when looking at feminist articles.
The real issue is that many people are shit. Regardless of gender, race and a lot of other things, some people in almost every group* will probably always be shitty. You know who the real enemies are? Shitty people. There's too much throwing of blame at groups where only a small portion of the group is guilty of whatever when it's just numerous individuals in many groups that are to responsible, but those that blame groups in this fashion only add to the problem and encourage more bigotry as a response.
It's just too easy for most people to instead pick on something as a cause and frankly, most people can't be fucked really doing a lot of thinking, so they just assume things that are easy for them instead and nothing really improves.
One thing I really hate about feminism (and I used to consider myself a feminist) is that surely any feminist who is really a moral sort of person would be willing to call themselves something like an egalitarian, wouldn't they? If you're basically for equal rights, why specifically identify yourself as being for just the rights of one group?
Obviously, movement groups and rights groups can focus on one group but wouldn't individual people with a real conscience identify themselves as egalitarians or "humanists" instead?
I might continue to watch more of the parts of this series, having watched the first two as linked on the first page of this thread, but yes, while there are some arguments that are not unreasonable, such as that is is unfair for female tennis players to argue for equal pay from 3 sets instead of 5 rather than the men's load being reduced or women's load being increased in order to get the same pay, most of the ideas so far are utter baloney and sound madly conspiratorial.
On February 12 2014 01:13 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: If you're basically for equal rights, why specifically identify yourself as being for just the rights of one group?
Obviously, movement groups and rights groups can focus on one group but wouldn't individual people with a real conscience identify themselves as egalitarians or "humanists" instead?
Many feminists obviously don't care about equality and just want to further women's rights, but many of them truly are fighting for equality, yet still call themselves feminists are I can think of two reasons for that. 1- They're particularly interested in women's rights - you have to pick your battles. They focus on gender equality rather than gay rights for instance and other such issues. 2- Feminism is not only about equality, it's also about gender roles, and regarding that topic, opinions are all over the place. Some brands of feminists say that men and women should split all area of human activity 50/50 between men and women, other brands of feminists say that men and women are different but equal and part of feminist's work is to make the role of females to be less frowned upon. That's not to say there's a brand of feminists that agree with gender roles, but they don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that we should force a perfect 50/50 "equality".
The problem at this point is that feminism is a hollow term because it encompasses an incredibly large variety of conflicting opinions and world views and its advocates like to say that other feminist groups which holds values that are different than theirs are not real feminists, in a "no true Scotsman" fashion.
It's inconceivable to me that under the umbrella of "feminism", there both the people who say women should be career driven and housewives are dominated by the patriarchy and those who say women should do what they want. How does one word describe all those fucking people? And how can you really call yourself a feminist if you try to devalue the work of women who raise children and take care of the home? I myself prefer career women but it seems to me like a feminist should defend women's rights, not one type of women.
And so decent "feminists" are gender equality activists who are lumped together with the nutters under the word "feminism".
1 - Agreed about which battles you really fight, but that's what the [choosing of groups to be a part of] bit is about. That doesn't stop the individual feminists from instead calling themselves egalitarians but being a part of a feminist group or pushing for women's rights, but I personally never hear these terms from women that also call themselves feminists, only those who shun the term feminism for all the issues it has. I would strongly disagree with the idea that you have to pick your battles when talking about what you support, but agree that you need to when working with a group such as a women's rights group.
2 - Gender roles are part of equality and rights, I don't see why they'd be considered separate except for those that have little interest in the issues anyway. As an attempted example, politicians who might decide what to concede/make political bills for might not care much about changing gender roles (doing anything to encourage the acceptance of stay-at-home fathers as a less common example) but might support changes like quotas for women in high-up positions within businesses. That of course leads onto the issue that unless you have (equal) quotas for men as well, it's (supposedly) attempting to enforce equality but through rules that are sexist bullshit. Even if everyone happily accepted the idea that there would be quotas for both genders, sometimes, there might just be more highly skilled men than highly skilled women, or more highly skilled women than highly skilled men for those positions, which is where minimum quotas end up becoming detrimental and limiting to business/progress and detrimental to the opportunities for those most appropriate for any given job.
I was very disappointed to find a girl (woman...but the attitudes she has...-_-) who posts youtube videos about Japan talking about a woman's right to be a housewife and how in Canada she used to feel like all her friends and family treated her like that's not a fair option, yet attempted to ridicule any equality arguments about men's lack of social allowance to "be a houseman" or anything of the sort maybe in any country (and ever in history) by telling them to "put on a dress then". Yeuch, so stupid.
Couldn't agree more with all your other points and the last is exactly why it baffles me that there are seemingly very intelligent women who don't kick up more of a fuss about the other types or call themselves something other than feminist, as if they just wilfully ignore the existence of the batty ones or assume all claims of horrid "feminists" are made by terrible men.
They call themselves feminists because they are fighting for female rights. This is the same as fighting for equality, because women are disadvantaged in a lot of key areas. It's not about a battle for power, even though it may appear that way in a lot of cases. There are a lot of women that can get very passionate about the subject, and come across as pretty aggressive and unhelpful, and this turns men away from the cause. However, the cause itself is a noble one imo, and if you can see past the few cases where it is taken to extremes, you will find it is very reasonable, and in some cases, it helps the male cause too.
It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
On February 12 2014 02:18 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: 1 - Agreed about which battles you really fight, but that's what the [choosing of groups to be a part of] bit is about. That doesn't stop the individual feminists from instead calling themselves egalitarians but being a part of a feminist group or pushing for women's rights, but I personally never hear these terms from women that also call themselves feminists, only those who shun the term feminism for all the issues it has. I would strongly disagree with the idea that you have to pick your battles when talking about what you support, but agree that you need to when working with a group such as a women's rights group.
Sorry to have to say that but fighting for "equality" as a whole will never accomplish anything because politics doesn't work off of good will. Social change happens off of specific demands articulated by people. So if you have a bunch of people fighting for an overly broad term like equality, the folks in parliament will just jerk off and do nothing.
2 - Gender roles are part of equality and rights, I don't see why they'd be considered separate except for those that have little interest in the issues anyway. As an attempted example, politicians who might decide what to concede/make political bills for might not care much about changing gender roles (doing anything to encourage the acceptance of stay-at-home fathers as a less common example) but might support changes like quotas for women in high-up positions within businesses. That of course leads onto the issue that unless you have (equal) quotas for men as well, it's (supposedly) attempting to enforce equality but through rules that are sexist bullshit. Even if everyone happily accepted the idea that there would be quotas for both genders, sometimes, there might just be more highly skilled men than highly skilled women, or more highly skilled women than highly skilled men for those positions, which is where minimum quotas end up becoming detrimental and limiting to business/progress and detrimental to the opportunities for those most appropriate for any given job.
I was just saying that there's a difference between "equal" and "different but equal". It can be argued that feminism is not only about equality because there's an element of wanting to change the culture, to set new standards. For instance, taking women out of the kitchen is a cultural thing - it's not necessarily a superior one, or about equality.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
I think the preconceived lense is exactly the issue here...
On February 12 2014 03:20 Zealos wrote: They call themselves feminists because they are fighting for female rights. This is the same as fighting for equality, because women are disadvantaged in a lot of key areas. It's not about a battle for power, even though it may appear that way in a lot of cases. There are a lot of women that can get very passionate about the subject, and come across as pretty aggressive and unhelpful, and this turns men away from the cause. However, the cause itself is a noble one imo, and if you can see past the few cases where it is taken to extremes, you will find it is very reasonable, and in some cases, it helps the male cause too
And when (to make an example) american colleges adopts extremist feminist ideas, (even though you don't agree with the ideas) you just shrug it off and don't see it as a problem, simply because "true feminists are not like that".
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
I'm saying your "how come if they're both drunk the man is automatically to blame" is a complete misreading of the example given and is either due to some twisted unconscious warping of the words to fit your own preconceived ideas or out of extreme idiocy. The example clearly described one as active, the other as passive, and yet your reading of it is that the man is to blame on the basis of his sex and that the woman is not to blame on the basis of her sex.
Now I've explained the words to you are you willing to consider that maybe the fact that one was active and the other passive might have been the reason the man was considered to blame there or are you going to go full retard?
Also at no point did I say that drunkenness automatically makes a scenario rape. When I gave my views I specified that there was no consent and I did so in a gender blind way. See here
if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong.
Sokrates again read into that that I believe all activities when drunk are rape and that whenever that happens the man is a rapist, those words were not there.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
I'm saying your "how come if they're both drunk the man is automatically to blame" is a complete misreading of the example given and is either due to some twisted unconscious warping of the words to fit your own preconceived ideas or out of extreme idiocy. The example clearly described one as active, the other as passive, and yet your reading of it is that the man is to blame on the basis of his sex and that the woman is not to blame on the basis of her sex.
Now I've explained the words to you are you willing to consider that maybe the fact that one was active and the other passive might have been the reason the man was considered to blame there or are you going to go full retard?
The man is expected to be the active part and is most likely the active part. So asides from that your definition of said rape still is totally out of proportion no matter if you blame the man or the woman. What you are basically saying is that every sex or every making out under the influcence of alcohol is considered rape beause there will always be a part that is more active than the other. Also note that you said drunk people cannot consent, so there has to be a rapist involved, even if you make it genderblind this is still fucked up.
On February 12 2014 07:20 farvacola wrote: It's convenient to pretend that consent is unusual Sokrates, but that doesn't make it so. Try again with a better hyperbole.
Go to a random club or party and see how people behave there. There is a shitload of drunk people making out and having sex later. We better put a stop to that.
What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote: What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works.
Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote: The man is expected to be the active part and is most likely the active part.
You can actively give consent while being initiated on. The verb "pawing" is not typically used to describe that situation.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote: So asides from that your definition of said rape still is totally out of proportion no matter if you blame the man or the woman.
What definition of rape? I didn't give one. You seem to think I think all drunken sexual activity is rape. I do not.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote: What you are basically saying is that every sex or every making out under the influcence of alcohol is considered rape beause there will always be a part that is more active than the other.
No I didn't. You said that. Just now.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote: Also note that you said drunk people cannot consent, so there has to be a rapist involved, even if you make it genderblind this is still fucked up.
No, I really didn't say that.
What is happening here is that you keep reading this weird fucked up manhating agenda into everything anyone says and it's just not there. You seem to have literally no clue what I wrote.
Then how do you know there was no consent? What if the person being pawed on was ok with that? Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote: What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works.
Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man.
And you thought an appropriate response to the fact that the single example given was not gender neutral was to conclude that feminists think all men everywhere are rapists despite the fact that in the example the gender of the individual involved was not the reason he was identified as being in the wrong?
If you're so upset about the example not being gender neutral, or not being repeated immediately afterwards the genders reversed, write to the editor. I've seen girls do things to guys who are pretty much out of it drunk and as a feminist I'm not okay with it. You're arguing against a strawman that you made up.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote: What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works.
Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man.
And you thought an appropriate response to the fact that the single example given was not gender neutral was to conclude that feminists think all men everywhere are rapists despite the fact that in the example the gender of the individual involved was not the reason he was identified as being in the wrong?
If you're so upset about the example not being gender neutral, or not being repeated immediately afterwards the genders reversed, write to the editor. I've seen girls do things to guys who are pretty much out of it drunk and as a feminist I'm not okay with it. You're arguing against a strawman that you made up.
So then every feminist that complains about articles or games that are not gender neutral are arguing against a strawman. Am i correct with that assumption? You just said that it doesnt matter what gender the persons involved in an article/game etc. have. But i have the impression that "gender neutrality" in such mattters are one of the top tier subjects in feminist movements. If you agree on that then i also agree on that article.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
Most of sexual actions are implicit, you dont ask a girl if you can kiss her if you dont want to sound like a clown. She will either respond or pull back. Same with all that other stuff. I m not talking about blacked out persons because they can not respond but if someone is still able to talk or able to react then this person is also able to show that he/she isnt ok with something. And he/she is also able to tell if something is ok or not.
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
Of course this thing is a bit of a grey area and not clear cut but i d rather apply to personal responsibility than making this whole thing a walk on eggshells.
On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote: I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape.
Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote: I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape.
Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now."
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating?
Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote: I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape.
Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now."
NEVER EVER did i see that happen.
I know a guy who was falsely accused of rape. It made national news at the time oddly enough and he came out of it pretty poorly because he was named by the papers. The same papers that ruined his name actually ran editorials afterwards saying how awful it was that the suspect could be named but the victim remained anonymous before the courts made a ruling because fuck hypocrisy, papers to sell. Anyway, her story was found to be unconvincing and was thrown out and I think based upon what I was told about it (admittedly I only heard his side) that they made the right decision.
But equally we don't go around saying "I bet you didn't get mugged, you just regret giving away all your money". It's just a really shitty thing to say to someone. Rape is an unusually distressing crime and opening with an accusation that they deserved it and that they wanted it is just an awful, awful thing to say. If the facts support that conclusion then find the guy innocent and say so and if malicious intent from the "victim" can be proved then go ahead and go after her. But if there is a chance that they were actually raped and you still think "I bet you actually wanted it to happen" is an okay thing to say to someone then you're a colossal shitbag.
I accept that statistically speaking some people must make false rape accusations for whatever reason. Research into it shows that it's a low percentage, no more than other false accusations for other crimes, but it is a non zero number so there are some of them out there. What I do not accept is that it is reasonable to accuse people who are probably rape victims of being responsible for their own rape. The majority of rapes are very difficult to prove and devolve into one word against another and it is no more reasonable to assume that a woman whose rapist was not convicted (insufficient evidence, not reported, not found, whatever) really wanted it than that the accused person was actually a rapist.
It is wrong to treat someone accused of being a rapist but not found guilty as a rapist. It is also wrong to blame someone who was possibly raped for their rape. These things are not mutually exclusive.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Actually I never got hat kind of double standards often involved with feminism. Germany's best known feminist Alice Schwarzer declared the word "Unschuldsvermutung" (Innocent until proven otherwise) to be the "Unwort" (worst word of the year) because a man (Kachelmann, should be rather unknown outside of Germany) was convicted "not guilty" of rape in a rather controversy prozess. Any man with such kind of bold statements (women just want to be raped or other horrible stuff) would be publicy cruzified.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating?
Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Well it is always the "noble" cause that justifies the means. THe discussion here is about the noble cause and not about the means, they pretend they do not exist.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating?
Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Because she has stated that she does not want to have sex with you. If in doubt, ask. If she initiates the actual penetration and puts your dick inside her then you're in the clear but if she consents to oral sex but not vaginal penetration and then you force her then that is rape. If someone states "I do not consent to X", don't do X to her. Pretty basic shit.
I'm a real life feminist and I don't believe that staring is the same thing as physical rape. I talk to quite a lot of feminists in real life and none of them think that. You seem to have made these people up. You talk about "real life feminism", how many feminists do you talk to in real life? Do they really tell you that staring should be punished the same way as a physical rape? Where do you find these people? Are they your friends? Your peers?
On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote: I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape.
Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now."
NEVER EVER did i see that happen.
I know a guy who was falsely accused of rape. It made national news at the time oddly enough and he came out of it pretty poorly because he was named by the papers. The same papers that ruined his name actually ran editorials afterwards saying how awful it was that the suspect could be named but the victim remained anonymous before the courts made a ruling because fuck hypocrisy, papers to sell. Anyway, her story was found to be unconvincing and was thrown out and I think based upon what I was told about it (admittedly I only heard his side) that they made the right decision.
But equally we don't go around saying "I bet you didn't get mugged, you just regret giving away all your money". It's just a really shitty thing to say to someone. Rape is an unusually distressing crime and opening with an accusation that they deserved it and that they wanted it is just an awful, awful thing to say. If the facts support that conclusion then find the guy innocent and say so and if malicious intent from the "victim" can be proved then go ahead and go after her. But if there is a chance that they were actually raped and you still think "I bet you actually wanted it to happen" is an okay thing to say to someone then you're a colossal shitbag.
Ok i agree with that but "siding" with the victim and assuming that the guy must be guilty is ALSO malicious when nobody acutally knows what is going on. Feminists are very quick siding with the victim and saying the guy is guilty. It is the same shit as saying that she was asking for it.
I accept that statistically speaking some people must make false rape accusations for whatever reason. Research into it shows that it's a low percentage, no more than other false accusations for other crimes, but it is a non zero number so there are some of them out there. What I do not accept is that it is reasonable to accuse people who are probably rape victims of being responsible for their own rape. The majority of rapes are very difficult to prove and devolve into one word against another and it is no more reasonable to assume that a woman whose rapist was not convicted (insufficient evidence, not reported, not found, whatever) really wanted it than that the accused person was actually a rapist.
It is wrong to treat someone accused of being a rapist but not found guilty as a rapist. It is also wrong to blame someone who was possibly raped for their rape. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It is just wrong to assume that you have been raped when you didnt explicitly give consent but you were also not making clear that you didnt want it either (being really wasted is something different). Just like that girl that got eaten out in the middle of the street enjoyed it then this got spread on the internet and she accused him of rape afterwards. How retarded is that? I mean there was clear evidence that she was NOT raped but she accused him of rape anyway even knowing that this was filmed.
Modern day feminism plants such seeds in the heads of young women.
Ofc you are saying now that feminism doesnt do that but the reality is different. Like i said before in this thread: All the nice words and ideals mean nothing when they are just empty shells.
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote: Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating?
Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Because she has stated that she does not want to have sex with you. If in doubt, ask. If she initiates the actual penetration and puts your dick inside her then you're in the clear but if she consents to oral sex but not vaginal penetration and then you force her then that is rape. If someone states "I do not consent to X", don't do X to her. Pretty basic shit.
I'm a real life feminist and I don't believe that staring is the same thing as physical rape. I talk to quite a lot of feminists in real life and none of them think that. You seem to have made these people up. You talk about "real life feminism", how many feminists do you talk to in real life? Do they really tell you that staring should be punished the same way as a physical rape? Where do you find these people? Are they your friends? Your peers?
You find such people all over the internet, they may be a minority and batshit crazy but maybe they become the mainstream in a few years. There is also a picture stating "i need feminism because you can rape a woman without ever laying a hand on her."
If you insist upon fighting your own straw men there is no point in me, or anyone else, talking to you. Go find a "real feminist" (someone who by your definition assumes all men are rapists) to fight. Let me know when you do and I'll join you because as a real person who is also a feminist I strongly disagree with what the "real feminists" are saying.
But there is absolutely no point in you fighting your straw men here unless you find a "real feminist". For now you're stuck with me and my feminism which, incidentally, you seem to agree with.
In response to your edit. Crazy people saying dumb things!?!? On the internet!?!?
No shit people say dumb things on the internet. But using them to define feminism so you can argue against it is about as smart as using "but if God isn't real then who made Satan" to argue against the intelligence of Christians. You just have to let that shit go, it's not worth it.
Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
On February 12 2014 08:53 Sokrates wrote: Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
Can you find all those feminists you are talking about?
And I, and many feminists hate on MRA's because they are like you; they make up their own version of a "Feminist" and proceed to fight it with all their might. Perhaps hate is too strong though, most of the time I just get a nice sense of superiority when I see that stuff
with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
On February 12 2014 08:57 Zealos wrote: And I, and many feminists hate on MRA's because they are like you; they make up their own version of a "Feminist" and proceed to fight it with all their might. Perhaps hate is too strong though, most of the time I just get a nice sense of superiority when I see that stuff
Which is not an assumption right? Because your assumptions are legit and mine arent.
On February 12 2014 08:53 Sokrates wrote: Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
Can you find all those feminists you are talking about?
Could you repeat the gender neutrality question for me?
I think men's movements are a good idea because the story of gender relations is certainly not all about one group being oppressed, especially these days. Historically one group was denied property rights, freedom over their own body, employment and the franchise and the fight for all of those things created a social and intellectual movement, feminism. They won those fights and I'm sure we can both agree that's a good thing. However after legal equality was achieved gender continued to be a huge social and cultural issue and feminism as an intellectual movement was perfectly positioned and equipped to ask the questions about what that meant. What it means to be a man or a woman? What the importance of gender in society is? Whether there are intrinsic gender based roles (such as mother or warrior) or whether it's entirely arbitrary and a construct we've imposed upon society.
Following the end of the fight for equal rights feminists were the first ones to get their teeth stuck in to the big issues regarding gender because they were the ones who were most interested in that stuff. People who care about men's rights owe a lot to feminist theory, feminism provides the intellectual foundations for the study of gender in society. You're right, it's basically humanism and if you described me as a humanist then I wouldn't especially argue against that. But I choose to identify as a feminist because feminism is addressing the gender issues I care about and I don't see any reason not to identify with it. I care about men's rights and about gender equality in society, so does feminism, therefore I am a feminist.
My experience with MRAs is mostly comparable to your experience of feminists as man haters. I've seen a lot of really awful misogynistic shit online from people who identify as MRAs which has kind of ruined them for me. In that regard maybe I can empathise with why you seem to hate feminists. As long as they work towards treating people fairly and with respect I have no issue with them, this isn't adversarial, both sides should want the same things for themselves and each other.
On February 12 2014 09:05 KwarK wrote: Could you repeat the gender neutrality question for me?
I think men's movements are a good idea because the story of gender relations is certainly not all about one group being oppressed, especially these days. Historically one group was denied property rights, freedom over their own body, employment and the franchise and the fight for all of those things created a social and intellectual movement, feminism. They won those fights and I'm sure we can both agree that's a good thing. However after legal equality was achieved gender continued to be a huge social and cultural issue and feminism as an intellectual movement was perfectly positioned and equipped to ask the questions about what that meant. What it means to be a man or a woman? What the importance of gender in society is? Whether there are intrinsic gender based roles (such as mother or warrior) or whether it's entirely arbitrary and a construct we've imposed upon society.
Following the end of the fight for equal rights feminists were the first ones to get their teeth stuck in to the big issues regarding gender because they were the ones who were most interested in that stuff. People who care about men's rights owe a lot to feminist theory, feminism provides the intellectual foundations for the study of gender in society. You're right, it's basically humanism and if you described me as a humanist then I wouldn't especially argue against that. But I choose to identify as a feminist because feminism is addressing the gender issues I care about and I don't see any reason not to identify with it. I care about men's rights and about gender equality in society, so does feminism, therefore I am a feminist.
My experience with MRAs is mostly comparable to your experience of feminists as man haters. I've seen a lot of really awful misogynistic shit online from people who identify as MRAs which has kind of ruined them for me. In that regard maybe I can empathise with why you seem to hate feminists. As long as they work towards treating people fairly and with respect I have no issue with them, this isn't adversarial, both sides should want the same things for themselves and each other.
"So then every feminist that complains about articles or games that are not gender neutral are arguing against a strawman. Am i correct with that assumption? You just said that it doesnt matter what gender the persons involved in an article/game etc. have. But i have the impression that "gender neutrality" in such mattters are one of the top tier subjects in feminist movements. If you agree on that then i also agree on that article."
I m also not an MRA i couldnt care less about them, they are not much better than the feminists but i dont know much about them so i dont judge them yet. But seems it is the same category just the other way round.
You seem like a decent person but for me all this genderstuff is completely irrelevant, people are so crazy about their "identity politics" today that they forget about the real problems. All those people that want a change are trapped in the most ridicolous irrelevant discussions instead of focusing real problems like wealth distribution. People get mad over shit like "damsel in distress" motives in video games etc.
I m not much better after all i waste my time on discussing such subjects, seems like you can fill them with emotions much better.
The portrayal of gender in media is an issue worth talking about, both because media reflects our culture and influences it. If things such as games predominantly portray women as weak, as victims or as sex objects then that raises questions about why our society views them as that and whether games should be reinforcing that archetype. It's not something I'm hugely knowledgeable about or interested in, I guess I'd rather see freedom in terms of the narrative (if you wanna be Peach rescuing Mario that's okay too) but ultimately games are telling a story and it's up to the creators regarding what that story is. I guess I hope that rather than seeing the way women are portrayed in games and concluding games aren't for them a group of women passionate about gaming set out to make some games that tell the stories they care about. Oddly enough I think there is a similar project going on with comics. But again, it's not really my subject.
On February 12 2014 08:57 Zealos wrote: And I, and many feminists hate on MRA's because they are like you; they make up their own version of a "Feminist" and proceed to fight it with all their might. Perhaps hate is too strong though, most of the time I just get a nice sense of superiority when I see that stuff
Which is not an assumption right? Because your assumptions are legit and mine arent.
On February 12 2014 08:53 Sokrates wrote: Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
Can you find all those feminists you are talking about?
Are you kidding me?
My assumption is based on your actions, your assumption is based on actions you appear to have made up, and refuse to back up.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
On February 12 2014 08:57 Zealos wrote: And I, and many feminists hate on MRA's because they are like you; they make up their own version of a "Feminist" and proceed to fight it with all their might. Perhaps hate is too strong though, most of the time I just get a nice sense of superiority when I see that stuff
Which is not an assumption right? Because your assumptions are legit and mine arent.
On February 12 2014 08:56 Zealos wrote:
On February 12 2014 08:53 Sokrates wrote: Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
Can you find all those feminists you are talking about?
Are you kidding me?
My assumption is based on your actions, your assumption is based on actions you appear to have made up, and refuse to back up.
So you assume that a certain movement behaves in a certain way because of one person that isnt even aligned with them.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
And the straw men keep on coming. You can't ask for consent with every thrust and therefore asking for consent is pointless.
Also in a lot of play accidental rape is very possible. That you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen, just that your experiences with sex are pretty limited.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
I knew that this argument will come. Problem is that those feminist/identity politics latch onto movements that have a diffferent cause like occupy wallstreet or anonymos and clog it. In my country they latched onto the pirate party that was originally unideological and just cared about freedom on the internet. Now they threaten core members that dont want to have their ideological baggage with them.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
On February 12 2014 08:14 TheRealArtemis wrote: [Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. [...]
This is a perfect example of someone constructing his own - completely divorced from reality - strawmen of "feminists" and "feminism" and proceeding to attack them. If you genuinely believe that feminists typically consider that stares should be punished the same way physical rape is punished, you are both uninformed and, quite frankly, an idiot. Like Kwark, I'm a "real life feminist", and you simply do not know what you're talking about.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
And the straw men keep on coming. You can't ask for consent with every thrust and therefore asking for consent is pointless.
Also in a lot of play accidental rape is very possible. That you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen, just that your experiences with sex are pretty limited.
My point is the following: If you are driving a car on a highway and a kid chases a ball into it, you run him over and kill him its a sad thing but you are in no way responsible for a crime. On the same token, while "accidental rape" might be possible under your definition, I don't see how you can convict man for it.
You are making out drunk and sweaty, she says "use a condom", you rush it and don't put it properly and after a few thrust the thing falls off (or it was too small/big) and you do a it a few more more times because you honestly did not notice. Was it a rape? Does he have to go to jail?
My point is you can't pass moral or legal judgement on a man unless he forcefully and deliberately rapes a girl. Sex usually involves tons of guessing, drugs and and not a clear state of mind (i.e horny) so convicting a man on "accidental rape" seems terrible to me.
On February 12 2014 09:01 oneofthem wrote: with all this hurf about the evils of feminism on the internets the fact is that in real society the biggest problem is still male chauvinism or sexism. just don't be that and feminists shouldn't have a big problem with you
the biggest problems in society are hunger, diseases and economical stagnation because of social violence, lack of a solid democratical system and government control over economy. Feminism is a luxury only first world countries can afford.
on topic, I don't really understand in what kind of world you guys live on. Asking for consent every step of the way is a sure way to never getting layed. Raping someone "accidentally" seems impossible to me. Man make the move, woman pull backs or accepts it; if you force her trough violence after she withdraws then you call it rape.
And the straw men keep on coming. You can't ask for consent with every thrust and therefore asking for consent is pointless.
Also in a lot of play accidental rape is very possible. That you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen, just that your experiences with sex are pretty limited.
My point is the following: If you are driving a car on a highway and a kid chases a ball into it, you run him over and kill him its a sad thing but you are in no way responsible for a crime. On the same token, while "accidental rape" might be possible under your definition, I don't see how you can convict man for it.
You are making out drunk and sweaty, she says "use a condom", you rush it and don't put it properly and after a few thrust the thing falls off (or it was too small/big) and you do a it a few more more times because you honestly did not notice. Was it a rape? Does he have to go to jail?
My point is you can't pass moral or legal judgement on a man unless he forcefully and deliberately rapes a girl. Sex usually involves tons of guessing, drugs and and not a clear state of mind (i.e horny) so convicting a man on "accidental rape" seems terrible to me.
If a guy thinks they're just having rough sex or that the girl has in some way indicated that she's fine with it when in fact the girl is not fine with it then that's accidental rape. She could be incapacitated due to drugs, too shocked by the ignoring of her non consent to act, scared about what you'll do if she cries out because a man who ignores her no could do anything or a bunch of other reasons. People really do go incommunicative or freeze up in that kind of situation. Understanding this kind of stuff is pretty important in situations where consent can get messy. Now there is not necessarily mens rea in those cases but I believe you have a responsibility to take care of your partner during sex, you shouldn't want to rape them. A basic part of that is asking for consent before you violate previously stated limits. I'm not talking about convictions or the law here, this is just a personal tangent, but as part of being a decent human being you should want to make sure all your sex is consensual, it's something you should take seriously and make sure you make unambiguous before proceeding.
Edit: I always like this clip regarding murky consent, taken from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
it's pretty easy to make out edge cases to make rape charges based on pure consent seem injust or silly, but this relies on the high stigma/punishment associated with rape. my response is always to create an intermediate category of badness that appropriately bins these cases without going all the way to rape.
after all the lack of something like 'bad sex manners' in the legal codes is a reflection of how only the most hideous sex crimes were punished back in teh day. as standards have risen there's no legal category to contain it
Harvard feminist calls for shutting down researches that are against progressive goals.
"If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?"
Funny that this comes from people that believe in nearly unnoticable microaggressions that are the main force that shapes the society we live in right now.
On February 25 2014 05:22 ComaDose wrote: Yeah I guess he just really wants somewhere to complain, poor guy.
Isnt that what you do when you blame the patriarchy?
On February 25 2014 05:23 Sokrates wrote: Funny that this comes from people that believe in nearly unnoticable microaggressions that are the main force that shapes the society we live in right now.
On February 25 2014 05:22 ComaDose wrote: Yeah I guess he just really wants somewhere to complain, poor guy.
Isnt that what you do when you blame the patriarchy?
no i don't bump an old thread with a misguided individuals opinions, that has nothing to do with the OP, as an attack on a movement, when i blame the patriarchy.
I dont think that this is just a "misguided individual" but a person that expresses her belief that is shared to a certain extend within her feminist environment. Do you really think that she would write such a column when most of the people she has contact to wouldnt think alike?
Sure, the relationship between the content of a given opinion and audience reception is tenuous; it is not as though David Brooks is a good indicator for the general attitudes of Republicans, and the same can be said here in regards to the author and feminists.
This article actually has nothing to do with feminism at all other than the fact that the author is a feminist... why not bump some random asian hating thread instead of the feminist hating thread, shes asian too.
On February 25 2014 05:45 Sokrates wrote: "Opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism" isnt that specifically what feminists are against? And she is not asian.
Oh oops i read Y.L as YU somehow. sorry bout the Asian comment. My point is still that you could have picked on her heritage as easily as the fact shes a feminist based on relevancy.
I'm not sure how far off topic you wanna go / I want to go but we can talk about what feminists are if you want. Of course you have to understand that there is no panel of feminists or some kind of feminist church / pope where ideals are approved of and officially endorsed. So i think the only good defninition would be the original one plus any modifications. It started as a purely anti-oppression against women movement and i often refer to this picture: imo feminism is still the movement against oppression against women. it has succeeded in removing institutionalized oppression in a relatively small part of the world but I believe there is still work to be done, obviously in other parts of the world but also more subtly cleaning up the literally thousands of years of shitting on women. I don't believe it has anything to do with LGBT or racism other than that most well informed people are against oppression of anybody. of course i am just one feminist so what i say means as much as what any other person says.
But this article primarily relates to a potentially racist research paper and i think the onus is on you to say what it has to do with the OP or what makes it bump worthy.
A lot of people here disagree with that, saying that feminism is helping men too and just because it is called feminism doesnt mean it doesnt fight for everybody.
Why i posted it? Because i think many people following this ideology think the same why and try to silence people that dont agree with them. She just speaks out what many people in her deparment think. They are also very quick at spewing out buzzwords like "homophobe" "sexist" "misogynoist" etc.
"Sandra Y.L. Korn ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator in Eliot House."
So this is your thread to fight out against being silenced by feminists that are claiming to fight for everyone at the same time. I guess my North Korea Thread joke wasn't worth seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes.
My point is that you shouldnt blindly trust things that sound good. Many people fall for that trap thinking they are on the right side by blindly following an ideology. People should use their own heads instead of repeating something with a certain agenda. But as history has shown us most people rather adpot something as a whole instead of viewing it critically.
Isnt the whole feminism discussion in this thread about that?
On February 25 2014 06:39 Sokrates wrote: My point is that you shouldnt blindly trust things that sound good. Many people fall for that trap thinking they are on the right side by blindly following an ideology.
If that is your point, then the stance taken by that professor is almost completely irrelevant to your point. It seems to me, instead, that you are trying to discredit feminism by looking at a few individual cases in which a feminist said/did something you disagree with. The problem is that even if that professor thought that the individuals that hold views which differ from hers should be crucified and set on fire, it would say nothing about feminism.
Larger sample sizes generally lead to increased precision when estimating unknown parameters. For example, if we wish to know the proportion of a certain species of fish that is infected with a pathogen, we would generally have a more accurate estimate of this proportion if we sampled and examined 200 rather than 100 fish. Several fundamental facts of mathematical statistics describe this phenomenon, including the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.
In some situations, the increase in accuracy for larger sample sizes is minimal, or even non-existent. This can result from the presence of systematic errors or strong dependence in the data, or if the data follow a heavy-tailed distribution.
Sample sizes are judged based on the quality of the resulting estimates. For example, if a proportion is being estimated, one may wish to have the 95% confidence interval be less than 0.06 units wide. Alternatively, sample size may be assessed based on the power of a hypothesis test. For example, if we are comparing the support for a certain political candidate among women with the support for that candidate among men, we may wish to have 80% power to detect a difference in the support levels of 0.04 units.
That last bit is rather important; I'm sure you can see how it relates to the matter at hand. And as an aside, in sociology and the other "softer" sciences, falsifiability, while certainly nice, is not a luxury afforded to many of the most interesting and complex topics in their fields, gender politics being one of them.
I still do not understand how that helps? Sample size for what? Make a survey for feminists and let them answer "are you a man hater?"
And then your other argument: No way of refuting it. Just blind belief. You believe in a unfalsifiable theory.
You dont understand my argumentation: If i believe in something that is wrong i might, even with a benevolent intend, draw the wrong conclusions from it with vile consequences.
On February 25 2014 09:15 Sokrates wrote: So tell me a way to acutally convince you that modern day feminism is nothing else than an ideology that is malicious.
If i argue your way that isnt possible. Once you are trapped in this beliefs there is no way out it is circular logic.
Take major/very influential feminist authors and organizations and look at what they do/write in the name of feminism. Take major academic works on feminism and see how it has been studied.
Alternatively, open a dictionary, notice that the definition of feminism is "a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women" (Collins), and realize that you are fighting a strawman that you constructed yourself out of individual cases which were hardly representative of the aims of feminism.
Writeing in the name of something means jackshit. You can paint your flag in any color you want if the outcome is ugly brown.
I mean how hard is it for you to understand that just because you stand for nice things doesnt automatically include doing good. There are countless examples in history where people had good intends with vile consquences. How blind can you be?
Women already have equal rights but the outcome isnt equal. So how do we change it? Well we push certain agendas that are there to "correct" things. And if they dont make things the way we like it then we push more agendas etc.
If someone publically says something that women and men are not the same the person will get eaten alive by the media.
Again you give me no concrete answer you just rotate in your logical construct.
How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
He's telling you to actually inform yourself of the arguments of feminism, and then to explain why they are wrong. What you are currently doing, is reading the arguments of /certain feminists/ and having a little hissy fit over it.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
No acutally i m not doing that specifically see it as a mixture. Just pointing out how crazy feminism is, i know their arguments very well. It is not the first time i m having a "hissy fit" over them. Their arguments are wrong because they argue on the basis of unproven, contradictary theories that are not unfalsifiable. It doesnt matter what they say when their foundation is build on sand anyway. Somehow you cannot realize this and redirect me to their ciruclar logic. I have no interest in having a discussion inside your bubble. It is like discussing the bible with the pope.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash.
On February 25 2014 19:02 Sokrates wrote: No acutally i m not doing that specifically see it as a mixture. Just pointing out how crazy feminism is, i know their arguments very well.
Lol. Not form what I've seen.
It is not the first time i m having a "hissy fit" over them.
So you've had multiple then! Wonderful.
Their arguments are wrong because they argue on the basis of unproven, contradictary theories that are not unfalsifiable.
Contradictory* And feminist theory is about as unfalsifiable as anti-racism theory, but okay. I mean, it's not like you've provided any evidence or discussion anyway. I guess I should just believe your hissy fits over all the literary and scholarly articles out there. OH SOKRATES, YOU OF MUCH AUTHORITY, GUIDE US WITH YOUR ETHOS AGAINST THIS VILE FEMINISM!
It doesnt matter what they say when their foundation is build on sand anyway.
Do you even know their foundation? Lol. You might as well say that the 14th amendment's foundation is built on sand as well. Also, what's the foundation of your claim? Oh, right, nothing.
Somehow you cannot realize this and redirect me to their ciruclar logic.
Somehow you can't spell. Circular*. Also, apparently you don't realize that feminist theory has more confirmation, utility, authority, and evidence than your... well... nothing. You're also the one making the claim that feminism is damaging to society, so uh, prove this, please. Oh you haven't provided any evidence what so ever? Okay.
I have no interest in having a discussion inside your bubble. It is like discussing the bible with the pope.
Don't worry. I feel like I'm discussing with a close-minded illiterate who doesn't understand feminism. And you know what? I think I have more support for my feelings than you do for your whole argument. lol.
Swedish magazine claims that women are shorter than men because they are discriminated.
"Oh look, I'm taking 1 article and using it to argue against feminism, when I have no clue what it's about." How about you actually read some major works like this article which influenced both social psychology and sociology, which, by the way, shows that feminism indeed contributed great content to society.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash.
You should read the thread, there are much more examples provided not just two. And you shouldnt point out spelling mistakes when you cant spell yourself .
It is also funny that you point out feminist theory has any validation, gender is a social construct has been debunked multiple times.
It produces some real gems of science like this one:
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”
Hey look, I'm gonna use Sokrates style of arguing.
Men are all fucking terrible, they all fucking suck, because they say stupid things. Can you prove that men as a concept are not a waste of time? It's all just circular logic anyway.
Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
This is a fucking optimistic post. Most people here are just trying to get Sokrates to try to back up his arguments in any kind of reasonable way. Trying to convince him that society is in fact incredibly sexist is a really really long shot I think.
EDIT: Will admit though, this is a really concise and convincing way of framing some of the issues women face, so good job there.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male.
You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world.
It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation.
You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room.
Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this.
You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men.
Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city.
I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
Oh man... Your "points" are so unbelievably ridiculous and illogical that I have to say something.
1. Maybe because there are no good female candidates? If a female lack of CEO's and presidents is a sign of female oppression, then what is the fact that males are overrepresented among homeless ppl a sign of? Male oppression? Does that even exist in your vocabulary? Your conclusion that a underrepresentation of a category can only be a sign of oppression is just ridiculous. You're totally overlooking biological science and personal choice. Do you really think that a 50/50 distribution on all jobs is fair? Why do you assume that this is what men and women wants? 2. So you're saying that the reason why certain ppl oppose abortion is because it's a way to oppress women? What about the women who are against abortion? They just want to suppress women, including themselves, right? And I thought that the abortion debate was about the concept of life, and the disagreements of what a life is. 3. Yeah, because being a dick is a compliment, right? And since when was it a compliment to call a woman manly? Try calling a woman that and see how she reacts to being compared to "the superior gender". Calling a man a pussy is an insult, because it hints that he has many of the qualities that are stereotypically more common in women than in men. It hints that he doesn't have the qualities that women are generally attracted to, so it's an insult to his ability to pass on his DNA. It has nothing to do with him being equaled to a woman. 5. If certain ppl makes fun of someone who have been raped, they're scumbags, period. Why would you even have to mention this when it's so obvious? And it's irrelevant if women in Lesotho are being raped, or aren't allowed to go to school, if we're discussing western society. In fact, it offends me that you bring up their cause, when their cause isn't even part of the discussion. It's sickening, and it makes me question your self-proclaimed role as a protector of women. The person who thinks that only feminists cares about female oppression in the 3rd world, or even female oppression in the west, is an idiot. 6. Please show examples of commercials and sitcoms that acts as propaganda, to put women in the service of men. 7. Please mention any laws that favors men over women. 8. Please mention any examples of female oppression in sports.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
I m not arguing against that kind of feminism. I never did, and i never said feminism was bad throughout all history. I m arguing against that "gender is a social construct" "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" feminism in the firt world. Where people claim that there are so few women in male dominated jobs like computer science because of the patriarchy. I m talking about that kind of feminism that sees sexism and rape everywhere in our daily life and immediately assumes this must be misogyny and rape culture. Yes we objectivy women in the locker room because that is what we care about when we see a good looking woman. This is never going to change, when i see i woman with big tits and talk about her with my buddys then we dont speculate how smart she is when we dont even know her. It is not like women dont do the same. We care more about the looks and they care more about status, something you assume is learned.
You bring up CEOs are mostly male, well i think might be a good portion of sexism behind it, but there is also a good portion of innate male qualitiys involved that make men more successful. There are also certain male "qualitys" that leadto more suicides, more homelessness more prisoners etc. So there we are:Which part is sexism and which part is biology? How are you ever going to find out? What is your suggestion to change it? Equal rights are not enough so we have to enforce something by law.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote:
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
You might be right in this case but where do you draw the line? Next time it is sexist to do a research about male and female like brains because it propagates sexism.
The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male.
You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world.
It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation.
You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room.
Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this.
You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men.
Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city.
I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
Oh man... Your "points" are so unbelievably ridiculous and illogical that I have to say something.
oh you again. sorry for moving your hands around your keyboard.
1. Maybe because there are no good female candidates? If a female lack of CEO's and presidents is a sign of female oppression, then what is the fact that males are overrepresented among homeless ppl a sign of? Male oppression? Does that even exist in your vocabulary? Your conclusion that a underrepresentation of a category can only be a sign of oppression is just ridiculous. You're totally overlooking biological science and personal choice. Do you really think that a 50/50 distribution on all jobs is fair? Why do you assume that this is what men and women wants?
Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
2. So you're saying that the reason why certain ppl oppose abortion is because it's a way to oppress women? What about the women who are against abortion? They just want to suppress women, including themselves, right? And I thought that the abortion debate was about the concept of life, and the disagreements of what a life is.
your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
3. Yeah, because being a dick is a compliment, right? And since when was it a compliment to call a woman manly? Try calling a woman that and see how she reacts to being compared to "the superior gender". Calling a man a pussy is an insult, because it hints that he has many of the qualities that are stereotypically more common in women than in men. It hints that he doesn't have the qualities that women are generally attracted to, so it's an insult to his ability to pass on his DNA. It has nothing to do with him being equaled to a woman.
pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
5. If certain ppl makes fun of someone who have been raped, they're scumbags, period. Why would you even have to mention this when it's so obvious? And it's irrelevant if women in Lesotho are being raped, or aren't allowed to go to school, if we're discussing western society. In fact, it offends me that you bring up their cause, when their cause isn't even part of the discussion. It's sickening, and it makes me question your self-proclaimed role as a protector of women. The person who thinks that only feminists cares about female oppression in the 3rd world, or even female oppression in the west, is an idiot.
because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
6. Please show examples of commercials and sitcoms that acts as propaganda, to put women in the service of men.
well in every sitcom the fat husband sits on the couch while his hot wife gets him a beer after a long day of him at work and her home with the kids. in a lot commercials women serve men and never the opposite?
7. Please mention any laws that favors men over women. 8. Please mention any examples of female oppression in sports.
did you mean to direct these questions at me for any particular reason? cause now your just bringing up random stuff. but since you asked so nicely. its still not criminal to rape your wife in india. and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
On February 26 2014 03:32 Mothra wrote: The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets.
well like i said a couple pages back, as far as i'm concerned, feminism is simply anti-oppression against women.
On February 26 2014 00:13 ComaDose wrote: Sokrates, its like you don't know most of the women on the planet are treated like second class citizens. Its like you've never looked back in history more than 50-70 years and realized that literally the entire history before that (1000s of years) all women were treated as second class citizens. Its like you don't notice there has never been a female president or that all the managers and ceos at every company you and everyone you know have ever worked at have been mostly male. You've never seen how hard it can be to get an abortion in parts of even the western world. It's like you don't notice how pussy and girly carry a negative connotation. You've not heard too many sexist jokes objectifying women in the locker room. Have not read the reports on women who were just raped being made fun of by the police officers she reported to. like there are almost no women in places like Lesotho who have not been raped. Women arn't allowed to go to school in many places like this. You don't watch commercials or sitcoms and observe the roles propagated which put women at the service of men. Its not just about the institutionalized laws in your city. I'm not sure why you call these things unfalsifiable, just turn on your TV. I consider most of these things to be a result of the casual misogyny culture we propagate in the media, church, sports, and home all day everyday.
I m not arguing against that kind of feminism. I never did, and i never said feminism was bad throughout all history. I m arguing against that "gender is a social construct" "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" feminism in the firt world. Where people claim that there are so few women in male dominated jobs like computer science because of the patriarchy. I m talking about that kind of feminism that sees sexism and rape everywhere in our daily life and immediately assumes this must be misogyny and rape culture. Yes we objectivy women in the locker room because that is what we care about when we see a good looking woman. This is never going to change, when i see i woman with big tits and talk about her with my buddys then we dont speculate how smart she is when we dont even know her. It is not like women dont do the same. We care more about the looks and they care more about status, something you assume is learned.
You bring up CEOs are mostly male, well i think might be a good portion of sexism behind it, but there is also a good portion of innate male qualitiys involved that make men more successful. There are also certain male "qualitys" that leadto more suicides, more homelessness more prisoners etc. So there we are:Which part is sexism and which part is biology? How are you ever going to find out? What is your suggestion to change it? Equal rights are not enough so we have to enforce something by law.
You have your eyes closed to all these things so that you can attack someone that says the government shouldn't publish “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty” while acknowledging their right to do so. Why do you think the government should publish that? I mean of course then CAN but why would you ever tell all men that they cant control themselves better than un-neutered dogs?
You might be right in this case but where do you draw the line? Next time it is sexist to do a research about male and female like brains because it propagates sexism.
im not drawing lines or anything. you see sexism. i see sexism. we both agree thats bad. lets work together to get rid of it. It's true I do believe the reason this sexism exists is because "gender is *largely* a social construct" "the patriarchy" exists in most houses and "rape culture" still isn't completely dead. iuno why you find those ideas so offensive but w.e. the reason im sure if we all work together we can stop oppressing women.
On February 25 2014 10:07 kwizach wrote: How am I "rotating in my logical construct"? I just explained to you how you could take a first step to verify that hypothesis of yours that feminism is a malicious ideology - see what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and look at major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact. Then come back here and tell us where you think you saw something malicious.
Of course, if you're more interested in entertaining that strawman of yours by cherry-picking individual stories in which a single feminist did/said something you disapprove of, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Let us just assume their intend or ideology isnt malicious per se yet wrong. Would you agree that if i push certain agendas on the basis of a wrong theory could have bad consequences?
Let's not assume anything. Let's wait for you to show us how feminism is "not malicious per se yet wrong". You asked how you were supposed to do that, I explained to you how, so let's see what you've got.
No you did explained nothing. You said read a book, i dont know how reading a book disproves your theories which are unfalsifiable.
What Zealos said. You are the one making the claim that feminism is a malicious/wrong ideology. Substantiate that claim by looking at what major feminist authors and organizations produce, and what major academic works on feminism documenting its content and its impact say.
They produce barely anything most of their stuff is just plain wrong or trash.
Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
On February 26 2014 03:32 Mothra wrote: The thing that strikes me about conversations about feminism is that the people representing feminism rarely are able to clarify and explain what it is. They're quick to point out what it isn't, and often resort to ridicule and sarcasm when pressed for clarification. So while opponents are accused of attacking a straw man, it looks like defenders too are defending a straw man... or rather a constantly shifting chimera that is impossible to pin down. It bears a lot of resemblance to religious discussions. "That's not REAL Christianity" "That's not REAL feminism". Both systems seem to require of their believers unquestioning faith in certain tenets.
Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. You're welcome.
Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Exactly, i never said something else. But genderstudies supports the idea that there are NO biological differences as you can see in this documentation.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
So what is your point? Every expert is confronted with the argument of the other. What bias the author holds or what you think what bias he holds is nearly irrelevant.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
So you are claiming that culture already has an impact on babies that are not even 2 days old? That is what i said with unfalsifiable. You already assume that outcome of this tests are useless.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
Again: This are babies, if there are difference then they will be very small because they are just 1-2 days old.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
Every scientist has some sort of bias,it is utterly ridicolous to invaldiate a scientific study based on the fact that the author was looking for it. The most biased people i ve ever came to know are gendersstudies people. They state by definition that there are no sex differences and now i have to assume that the very same people that by definition exclude this option (none of the people arguing on behalf of biological differences excluded cultural influence) are unbiased. That is just absurd.
It is nearly impossible to do studies that exclude cultural factors because culture is everywhere. You even point out it already has an effect on 1 day old babies. That is what i meant with unfalsifiable. There are also newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains. Also you leave out the fact that career choices in more progressive countries are more gendersperated than in countries that are more archaic and "backwards" which is paradox. There are also phenomenons that are consistant in nearly every culture in history.
You can always make up hypothesis and theories that are sound but you cannot prove them, genderpeople just assume their theories are correct and unbiased while people that are "looking" for innate differences have to be biased per se (because they are trying to find such which is ridicolous).
What feminists believe is that low air pressure in your tires will make you lose the race everytime and there are no other factors.
I m sry but i m not so naive that i believe in a social contruct when you can see the diffferences each day and even scientific data suggests this is true. I also never said culture doesnt have a big influence on the genders. I believe it is both, and i have to say people that believe in either culture or biology are incredibly narrow minded to me.
To sum up my point: I do not support a movement that pushes certain agandas on the base of an unproven ideology. Not more and not less. All i say: Equal rights for everybody, but no "affirmative" action no quotas and no "special rights" for women. Simple as that.
Also: Fuck off trying to change laws, stop pushing quotas and stop painting men a oppressive sexist pigs and thinking womeen are cute little angles that have no responsibility for their own action and it is always the patriarchys fault. If women chose not to go into tech then it is THEIR problem and THEIR fault not the fault of geeky nerds that are exclusive.
Who's "they"? What exactly is supposed to be "plain wrong" or "trash"? Does that include the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities? Because that's the very foundation of feminism.
Now, let's take a look at the documentary you posted. I watched it entirely. To sum it up, it defends the idea that both cultural and biological factors play a role in determining the career paths and choices of men and women, and that in an "equal" society like Norway differences in the career paths of women and men (for example, engineers tend to be men and nurses tend to be women) can be explained by the fact that men and women are free to follow their natural (understand: biological) inclinations. This is demonstrated by what appears to be a candid journalist/investigator going to speak with various experts in order to understand the issue better, and reaching what looks like a logical conclusion given the evidence that he has been presented with.
I could start by pointing out to you that this very documentary that you cited as evidence of your claim in fact contradicts it since it supports the idea that culture does play a role next to biology.
Exactly, i never said something else. But genderstudies supports the idea that there are NO biological differences as you can see in this documentation.
Actually, you specifically argued against the existence of the social construction of gender. Also, gender studies seek to analyze gender identity and roles - they do not seek to provide a biological verification of the existence or not of a physical determinism. Some of the social scientists who work on gender, however, do follow the research being done on the existence or not of biological determinism, and right now it can very much be said, exactly as the social scientist appearing in the "documentary" does, that the scientific evidence available does not support the idea that there are fundamental biological differences between the brains of men and women that would lead to different interests/choices in career paths/major cognitive traits.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: Let's go a bit further than that, however (I am in debt to Odile Fillod's excellent rebuttal of the documentary), and look at how its message pertaining to the role of biology holds up under increased scrutiny. First, let's point out that the "journalist/investigator" whom we follow in the "documentary", Harald Eia, is not actually trying to "inform himself" (and he's not a journalist) - he is an active proponent of the theory that biology leads to differences in behavior and interests between men and women, including in terms of career paths. He has, in fact, published a book defending these views (EIA, Harald, IHLE, Ole-Martin (2010), Født sånn eller blitt sånn?). He has confirmed in an interview that he held these views prior to making the "documentary", and that they came to him notably after reading authors like Steven Pinker and David Buss (see his interview here). So let's keep in mind that, contrary to what is being shown on screen, this guy is absolutely not genuinely trying to get a better idea of the issue and weighing what different experts are telling him - he has already made up his mind and the entire documentary is constructed to convince the audience of the validity of the views he holds. That is why he ends the documentary by showing the expert in gender studies seemingly unable to answer what is put forward by the experts in psychology and human evolution he carefully selected.
So what is your point? Every expert is confronted with the argument of the other. What bias the author holds or what you think what bias he holds is nearly irrelevant.
Uh, what? I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated my point. The main character is pretending to be neutral and candid when he isn't at all. His progressive espousal of the views of the selected psychologists and evolution scientist is presented as a result of the "logical" validity of their arguments, as opposed to (what is shown as) the ideological stance of the social scientists. In reality, he agreed with the first group from the start and made the entire documentary to discredit the views of the second group.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: This being said, what is the validity of the "expert opinions" he relies on to assert that biology leads to men and women essentially having different brains? One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
So you are claiming that culture already has an impact on babies that are not even 2 days old? That is what i said with unfalsifiable. You already assume that outcome of this tests are useless.
No, I don't assume that, so take the time to read what I wrote. I said that being 36,7 hrs old is different from being 24 hrs old, and that it CAN be that culture has started to have an impact at that point. The ones who are declaring that being 36,7 hrs old is equivalent to being in a blank state in terms of cultural factors are the ones making an assumption.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
Again: This are babies, if there are difference then they will be very small because they are just 1-2 days old.
What the hell is this supposed to even mean? Do you realize that the entire point of the interview of Baron-Cohen was that he said there were differences between male and female babies? I just explained to you what that assertion was very problematic with regards to some of the results obtained. If you're going to respond something, then take the time to frigging pay attention to what I'm saying to you and to write a coherent response - I took 30 minutes of my life to watch your stupid unscientific documentary and even more to write this reply to you, so it seems to me that the least you can do is take the time to reply seriously if you're going to reply at all.
On February 26 2014 04:20 kwizach wrote: To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
Every scientist has some sort of bias,it is utterly ridicolous to invaldiate a scientific study based on the fact that the author was looking for it.
First of all, I am not "invalidating" the study based on the fact that the author was looking for a particular result. I just explained to you AT LENGTH the NUMEROUS problems with the study, including the fact that the results that appear in the study do not corroborate the narrative that is put forward in the documentary. Here, I was explaining to you why, contrary to how his findings are presented in the documentary, Baron-Cohen was not simply a neutral scientist who happened to reach this particular result based on looking objectively at the evidence.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: The most biased people i ve ever came to know are gendersstudies people.
Citation needed.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: They state by definition that there are no sex differences and now i have to assume that the very same people that by definition exclude this option (none of the people arguing on behalf of biological differences excluded cultural influence) are unbiased. That is just absurd.
First of all, I never said anything about people engaging in gender studies never having any bias. I pointed out the numerous problems of bias in the documentary which YOU cited as evidence of feminists producing "stuff" that is "wrong or plain trash". If you cite shitty documentaries full of bias, it's your fault, so don't throw a hissy fit when that very bias is underlined.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: It is nearly impossible to do studies that exclude cultural factors because culture is everywhere. You even point out it already has an effect on 1 day old babies. That is what i meant with unfalsifiable. There are also newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains.
It's not unfalsifiable per se, it's simply an independent variable that is difficult to isolate. Also, no, there are no "newer studies that point out differences in male and female brains". If you're thinking of the article published in December by Ingalhalikara et al., I can already stop you right there - not only have media reports completely blown out of proportion was is actually in the article, but the very findings of the study do not support the conclusions of the authors (see for example here).
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: Also you leave out the fact that career choices in more progressive countries are more gendersperated than in countries that are more archaic and "backwards" which is paradox. There are also phenomenons that are consistant in nearly every culture in history.
The study referred to in the "documentary" is certainly not about "nearly every culture in history". It examines the situation in several different countries today and with a sample that is quite certainly not representative. Regardless, if the countries selected overwhelmingly exhibit patriarchal features, why would you expect different results?
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: You can always make up hypothesis and theories that are sound but you cannot prove them, genderpeople just assume their theories are correct and unbiased while people that are "looking" for innate differences have to be biased per se (because they are trying to find such which is ridicolous).
Citation needed. Have you actually read any book in gender studies? There are plenty of analyses, even outside of gender studies (psychology etc.) which demonstrate the impact of cultural factors and explain the social construction of gender roles.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: What feminists believe is that low air pressure in your tires will make you lose the race everytime and there are no other factors.
No, that is you having no frigging clue at all of what gender studies say and produce.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: I m sry but i m not so naive that i believe in a social contruct when you can see the diffferences each day and even scientific data suggests this is true.
Uh, the differences you see each day are precisely the result of the enactment of social constructs. Do you even know what you're talking about? Regarding the "scientific data" you refer to, you're again completely wrong - to quote the American Psychological Association, "men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership". Here's an article on 46 meta-analyses that show exactly that: Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). "Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis", Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 139-155.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: I also never said culture doesnt have a big influence on the genders. I believe it is both, and i have to say people that believe in either culture or biology are incredibly narrow minded to me.
You can believe what you want. The point is that the scientific studies on the matter show little to no impact of biological differences on the kind of cognitive traits you are referring to.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: To sum up my point: I do not support a movement that pushes certain agandas on the base of an unproven ideology.
Funny, because you just cited a documentary which does exactly that.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: top painting men a oppressive sexist pigs and thinking womeen are cute little angles that have no responsibility for their own action and it is always the patriarchys fault.
It's raining strawmen.
On February 26 2014 05:14 Sokrates wrote: If women chose not to go into tech then it is THEIR problem and THEIR fault not the fault of geeky nerds that are exclusive.
Didn't you just say "I also never said culture doesn't have a big influence"? The first half of your statement, as repeatedly demonstrated here, is completely wrong. The second half has nothing to do with gender studies and is, again, a strawman.
On February 26 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
OK. You obviously believe that men are being systematically favored in the workplace. That is your theory. Don't act like it's the truth, until you can prove it. I'm saying this not to you specifically, but to feminists in general. You have to prove your theories using proper scientific method, before we start accepting them as the truth. The problem is that most governments doesn't think like me, and they have embraced certain feminist theories despite the fact that they hold no scientific backing. This is a travesty imo.
Also, if a CEO hands over his "job" to his son, then why do you assume that he wasn't the best for the job? And why do you claim that only women were victims? What about all the other men who were also interested? Not all of us have fathers who are CEO's, and what prevents them from giving the job to their daughters? Nothing. Do you honestly think that these CEO's hate women so much that they don't even respect their own daughters? I don't think so. I think the logical conclusion is that in most cases, one of the sons was the most suitable candidate, because he was the most willing.
If you personally don't want a enforced 50/50 gender distribution of jobs, and don't want affirmative action then we're on the same page. I'm mainly against feminism because I think that affirmative action and similar concepts are undemocratic, hinders freedom and creates inequality.
I definately think that ppl are unjustly disfavoured on the workplace in many ways, but this happens on a case to case basis, and that's why I think it's irrelevant to focus on gender. It doesn't matter if one gender gets treated worse on average. Ensuring that the justice system works as it's supposed to is how we reach equality.
your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
So now abortion is a surgery? If it was simply a surgery, then noone would oppose it. The reason why some ppl oppose abortion is because they think that a 2 week fetus is a human life. It has nothing to do with female oppression, and everything to do with them wanting to save a human life.
pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
You don't know what ppl mean when they say those things. You make it seem like it's an insult aimed at women, when it's not. The purpose of those insults are to illegitimize a guys manlyhood. If you don't understand this, then whatever. Don't put words in other ppl's mouths. You can't call ppl crooked just because you misunderstand their words and then get offended.
because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
When we're talking about western feminism, and whether it's necessary, it doesn't matter what happens outside of the western world. So why do you keep bringing up examples like this:
its still not criminal to rape your wife in india.
This is just a cheap way for you to win sympathy points. "Join our cause, because we fight for the poor women in India." That's what you're saying, and you saying that is so misleading that it offends me. I don't think you care about them, because if you did, you wouldn't try to highlight their situation just to win sympathy points. As I said, we're discussing western feminism, so any situation outside of the western world belongs to another debate, a debate where I would be on the same side as feminists.
and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
This is not female oppression. Why is it oppression to say that they suck, or that you find their games not to be interesting? What if they objectively suck as hockey players compared to you, and what if you find their games to be uninteresting? Aren't you allowed to speak the truth? Saying these things doesn't mean that you don't support women's hockey, it just means that you aren't interested in it. I mean, would you take the games of your friends 14 year old little brother seriously? No, because the games are just not interesting enough, and if I had a friend who was bugging me about some game that his 14 year old brother played, then I would probably respond with "lolkidshockey". And if he bugged me about his gf's hockey game, I would say "lolwomenshockey". It's the same thing, really. I like the sport, but I have standards, when it comes to entertainment value.
With that said, I'm a huge biathlon fan and I like women's biathlon as much as men's biathlon. The reason why I approach this sport differently to hockey is because in this sport, the difference between the gender doesn't really hinder the entertainment value. It's a endurance sport, so the speed advantage of the men isn't really a factor. When both men and women can provide the same excitement, gender becomes irrelevant in sports. This is why certain women's sports, especially endurance and solo sports are better off than team sports, where the difference in physical capacity is more noticeable.
On February 26 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
OK. You obviously believe that men are being systematically favored in the workplace. That is your theory. Don't act like it's the truth, until you can prove it. I'm saying this not to you specifically, but to feminists in general. You have to prove your theories using proper scientific method, before we start accepting them as the truth. The problem is that most governments doesn't think like me, and they have embraced certain feminist theories despite the fact that they hold no scientific backing. This is a travesty imo.
Also, if a CEO hands over his "job" to his son, then why do you assume that he wasn't the best for the job? And why do you claim that only women were victims? What about all the other men who were also interested? Not all of us have fathers who are CEO's, and what prevents them from giving the job to their daughters? Nothing. Do you honestly think that these CEO's hate women so much that they don't even respect their own daughters? I don't think so. I think the logical conclusion is that in most cases, one of the sons was the most suitable candidate, because he was the most willing.
If you personally don't want a enforced 50/50 gender distribution of jobs, and don't want affirmative action then we're on the same page. I'm mainly against feminism because I think that affirmative action and similar concepts are undemocratic, hinders freedom and creates inequality.
I definately think that ppl are unjustly disfavoured on the workplace in many ways, but this happens on a case to case basis, and that's why I think it's irrelevant to focus on gender. It doesn't matter if one gender gets treated worse on average. Ensuring that the justice system works as it's supposed to is how we reach equality.
yup thats what i believe. seems pretty obvious to me. pretty common theme in literature and other media. lots of other people have observed this trend. I don't care about your political views. It does matter if one gender gets treated worse on average cause thats called sexism and thats bad.
your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
So now abortion is a surgery? If it was simply a surgery, then noone would oppose it. The reason why some ppl oppose abortion is because they think that a 2 week fetus is a human life. It has nothing to do with female oppression, and everything to do with them wanting to save a human life.
I believe women have a right to a choice. you don't?
pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
You don't know what ppl mean when they say those things. You make it seem like it's an insult aimed at women, when it's not. The purpose of those insults are to illegitimize a guys manlyhood. If you don't understand this, then whatever. Don't put words in other ppl's mouths. You can't call ppl crooked just because you misunderstand their words and then get offended.
no its an insult aimed at them. woman = insult. not cool.
because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
When we're talking about western feminism, and whether it's necessary, it doesn't matter what happens outside of the western world. So why do you keep bringing up examples like this:
we're? you quoted me you can't dictate what im talking about.
its still not criminal to rape your wife in india.
This is just a cheap way for you to win sympathy points. "Join our cause, because we fight for the poor women in India." That's what you're saying, and you saying that is so misleading that it offends me. I don't think you care about them, because if you did, you wouldn't try to highlight their situation just to win sympathy points. As I said, we're discussing western feminism, so any situation outside of the western world belongs to another debate, a debate where I would be on the same side as feminists.
and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
This is not female oppression. Why is it oppression to say that they suck, or that you find their games not to be interesting? What if they objectively suck as hockey players compared to you, and what if you find their games to be uninteresting? Aren't you allowed to speak the truth? Saying these things doesn't mean that you don't support women's hockey, it just means that you aren't interested in it. I mean, would you take the games of your friends 14 year old little brother seriously? No, because the games are just not interesting enough, and if I had a friend who was bugging me about some game that his 14 year old brother played, then I would probably respond with "lolkidshockey". And if he bugged me about his gf's hockey game, I would say "lolwomenshockey". It's the same thing, really. I like the sport, but I have standards, when it comes to entertainment value.
With that said, I'm a huge biathlon fan and I like women's biathlon as much as men's biathlon. The reason why I approach this sport differently to hockey is because in this sport, the difference between the gender doesn't really hinder the entertainment value. It's a endurance sport, so the speed advantage of the men isn't really a factor. When both men and women can provide the same excitement, gender becomes irrelevant in sports. This is why certain women's sports, especially endurance and solo sports are better off than team sports, where the difference in physical capacity is more noticeable.
no my teammates said really sexual inappropriate things that had nothing to do with skill level.
pls stop guessing what i mean and setting up your own net to slam dunk on the other side of the room.
Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
emphasized your black hole.
My black hole? Seems like another xM(Z gem is coming - do elaborate.
there is nothing to elaborate. you can just stick any argument, logic, idea, credo in there, and it goes puff, it gets sucked in. and i'm left strawmanning myself ...
ok, ComaDose, I have said all I wanted to say, and I don't see a debate with you leading anywhere, so whatever. But I want you to silently ask yourself this question: What gives you the right to decide how to interpret the full meaning of a persons words when they insult someone? My point is that you can see potential malice intended at a certain group in almost everything, but that doesn't mean that it was intended.
On February 26 2014 08:39 L1ghtning wrote: ok, ComaDose, I have said all I wanted to say, and I don't see a debate with you leading anywhere, so whatever. But I want you to silently ask yourself this question: What gives you the right to decide how to interpret the full meaning of a persons words when they insult someone? My point is that you can see potential malice intended at a certain group in almost everything, but that doesn't mean that it was intended.
Yeah, fucking people complaining about the word nigger. The white man should decide if it's offensive or not.
On March 24 2014 15:33 Jumperer wrote: The best video I've seen destroying fat acceptance and modern feminism
What a lame, hateful video. It doesn't destroy anything, just shows that the guy in the video is unable or unwilling to see things from someone elses viewpoint.
On March 30 2014 18:42 xM(Z wrote: we're talking about the fat acceptance movement which is advocated by some feminists.
Sorry, you think fat acceptance people want other people to pay for them to be skinny? I don't think you have a working knowledge of what the words you're using mean.
why do you keep trying?. it is in the video: they want liposuction to be covered by basic medical/health insurance which we, all taxpayers, need to pay.
On March 31 2014 04:49 xM(Z wrote: why do you keep trying?. it is in the video: they want liposuction to be covered by basic medical/health insurance which we, all taxpayers, need to pay.
And you think they want this because they're pro being fat? Does any part of "fat acceptance people want gov help being less fat" make sense in your head? Or is it possible you have taken a random youtube video at face value and left your critical thinking skills at home.
you are just strawmanning and misinterpret what i never said. ask them what's in their heads, how would i know?. those are their words/demands/needs/whatever.
but, if you ask me, i'd say they want to get the fat out so they could stick more fat right back in.
Ask who? In which country have these people made the taxpayers pay for their liposuction because they're in favour of being fat? Where has this happened? Who are these feminists?
It's a youtube video some guy made and because it vaguely conformed to some preconceived notions of yours you went "sounds legit" without applying even the slightest bit of thought to what it was claiming. And now I'm calling you out on how obviously nonsensical it is you're passing the buck off to a vague other with no explanation for why you took it at face value in the first place.
On March 31 2014 08:50 xM(Z wrote: you are just strawmanning and misinterpret what i never said. ask them what's in their heads, how would i know?. those are their words/demands/needs/whatever.
but, if you ask me, i'd say they want to get the fat out so they could stick more fat right back in.
"if you ask me, my assumption is that these fat people have the most nefarious and maliciously lazy motive possible"
It's a bit difficult to take seriously your complaint of other people straw manning when you're doing just that on an atrocious level. Heck attitudes like yours are why fat acceptance is needed. Being fat is not good but it isn't a free pass to assume the worst about people either. Have you not considered that some people are just so genetically disposed to being fat that liposuction is the only recourse?
I've personally seen a very close friend of mine nearing 300 pounds. At first he made many execuses that it is all genetic (his father was around 320 pounds) and he can't help but to have "higher gluttony level" than us and even was proud of his "superior digestive system" than the rest of us.
However as time went on, his father became sicker and sicker w/ series of heart faillures until one day he finally hit the coffin w/ an artery blockage. I went to his funeral. But as sad as it was, there was an upside to that event.
My friend quickly changed his mindset after several months of grief. He first started by changing his diet. What he did was that he would make his own vegetable soup every single night. Admitedly, they were rather weird tasting w/ combo of tomatoes, celery, lettuce, onions, and garlic. Yes, he even made me drink it. And as time went on, his eyes have became more and more focused which I'm guessing is from high caliber of USEFUL nutrients induced to his body that one day he started jogging to high school and flashforward 3 years later, he played as a Linebacker on the school's football team.
I think that we could all draw up a lesson from a such inspirational story that "You can change your 'destiny'." Humans have been adopting to environment since the dawn of time. And fuck the food industry for injecting highly addictive substance into low nutrient and high fat product, lowering these prices so that people would rather choose fast foods than real food. But in the end, assuming that you aren't born w/ a birth defect and have all functional limbs, will power is everything.
On topic:
The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down.
I hope you can see that you just used an anecdotal story (however inspiring, kudos to tour friend) as the basis to make a general comment on the.ability of humanity at large. Sorry but that's just poor argument.
Your.second point is even more confused. Feminists argue that society's conception of.beauty is.determined by patriarchal forces since society is male dominated. So of course females that are sidelined by this male view of.beauty are the.ones most likely to.complain! And of course Victoria secret models with exemplify the male gaze aren't. Your comment does not engage the feminist argument but instead highlights the problem with feminists feel is wrong.
The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down.
Damn, you do not know anything about feminism, do you?
On March 31 2014 08:50 xM(Z wrote: you are just strawmanning and misinterpret what i never said. ask them what's in their heads, how would i know?. those are their words/demands/needs/whatever.
but, if you ask me, i'd say they want to get the fat out so they could stick more fat right back in.
"if you ask me, my assumption is that these fat people have the most nefarious and maliciously lazy motive possible"
It's a bit difficult to take seriously your complaint of other people straw manning when you're doing just that on an atrocious level. Heck attitudes like yours are why fat acceptance is needed. Being fat is not good but it isn't a free pass to assume the worst about people either. Have you not considered that some people are just so genetically disposed to being fat that liposuction is the only recourse?
I have never understood this argument. While weight loss is certainly different for everyone, it is flat out impossible to be genetically fat, as unable to lose weight. If that was the case, there would be people who do not need to eat which obviously isn't the case.
If your gotten yourself really really fat you can still lose weight. Gonna be painful and harder than to other people, but it is certainly doable. Just get fucking help like a drug addict would, high sugary foods can be as addictive as drugs but lose weight is ALWAYS doable.
On March 31 2014 09:05 KwarK wrote: Ask who? In which country have these people made the taxpayers pay for their liposuction because they're in favour of being fat? Where has this happened? Who are these feminists?
It's a youtube video some guy made and because it vaguely conformed to some preconceived notions of yours you went "sounds legit" without applying even the slightest bit of thought to what it was claiming. And now I'm calling you out on how obviously nonsensical it is you're passing the buck off to a vague other with no explanation for why you took it at face value in the first place.
so if i find a random feminist demanding free lipo will you get of my back?. (since i believe a already implied that free lipo is not on the agenda (if they ever had one) of mainstream feminism)).
@levelping - the whole Kwark mess was gossipy and on the speculative fringe of possibility. his stance is that if it's not there yet, i should just shut up. i don't agree with that and speculate about a possibility, based only on the fact that some feminists have had a history of weird (to say the least) demands. also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
As an M.D., I am going to say that you should probably stop posting now. You are digging the hole you are already standing in deeper with every single post you make.
"The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down."
let's face it feminism isnt about ugly women's jealousy(you make it sound like it) over beautiful women who inevitably will succeed. men' domination transcend class, good looking or not. Money is what dont make you encline to feminism since its other women who deal with "women sphere" (homecaring, childcare, etc.) for you. you'll have a maid, a nany etc who will do everything for you. but since you're married to a richman he's still the provider so anything you can say against his domination will be turned away because he will always be the one you depend on. that is how gender transcend class.
it doesnt take much studies to realise that women weren't on equal level with men and that there was an ideology supporting it.
also i wouldnt argue with kwark if i were you. he's the kind to call you out personally (like saying you left your brain home) and when you respond bans you for flaming
The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down.
Because men are shallow and objectify women and a woman's success is measured by her ability to attract men as mates, feminists are ugly women trying to rule the world. I know this cause there is an ugly feminist and some hot people that are married. There are just too many things wrong with this.
On March 31 2014 09:05 KwarK wrote: Ask who? In which country have these people made the taxpayers pay for their liposuction because they're in favour of being fat? Where has this happened? Who are these feminists?
It's a youtube video some guy made and because it vaguely conformed to some preconceived notions of yours you went "sounds legit" without applying even the slightest bit of thought to what it was claiming. And now I'm calling you out on how obviously nonsensical it is you're passing the buck off to a vague other with no explanation for why you took it at face value in the first place.
Way to miss the entire point completely. Obese people obviously increase the cost of healthcare for everyone because obesity increase risks of many other deadly diseases. more diseases = more trips to hospital. It doesn't matter if they want or don't want us to pay for liposuction. Obesity rate is as highest its ever been in America and this whole "accept us for the way we are" bullshit isn't going to help. WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Where's your critical thinking skill at? This is an easy dot to connect.
If you're going with "fat people make choices which aren't in favour of the overall greater good of society and therefore we should shame them for it" argument then you're going to have to add them to the bottom of a very long list of other people doing the same. I mean really, how much do you think going to the gym daily really contributes? It's a colossal waste of labour which could be better spent saving for retirement, volunteering, spending time being a better parent or member of the community or learning. Do you think living longer really helps society anyway? It doesn't, it helps yourself, it's selfish. Society benefits if you work your 40 years, die without claiming a pension and your job/accumulated capital/house etc return to circulation for the benefit of the younger generation. Every single choice has an opportunity cost, when you work on getting a six pack you're choosing not to learn Mandarin, how fucking self absorbed must you be to choose looking better with your shirt off over the ability to communicate with a billion unique people. But we don't shame for these things because we recognise that other people's shitty decisions are their own. America has a problem with obesity, it also has a problem with profligate consumerism, patriotism, racism, anti-intellectualism, "American exceptionalism" and a bunch of other messed up social ills. The idea that you might accept all of the problems within your society as "just being 'murcan" but draw the line when someone eats recreationally and asks you to accept that is utter madness.
Shaming fat people is intellectually dishonest and it's a double standard. Shame broadly or accept the choices of others, picking on the fat is just a playground bully mentality.
The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down.
Because men are shallow and objectify women and a woman's success is measured by her ability to attract men as mates, feminists are ugly women trying to rule the world. I know this cause there is an ugly feminist and some hot people that are married. There are just too many things wrong with this.
"there are just too many things wrong with this" and then says nothing to back up his statement.
Well they seem so obvious I didn't know I would have to list these things for you but okay; men are not all shallow and objectify women, a women's success is not measured by her ability to attract men as mates, feminism isn't about a female dominated society, there are plenty of attractive feminists, being chased by men does not occupy all of attractive women's time and doesn't prevent them from criticizing society. Not to mention that saying "beautiful celebrities aren't complaining so there must be no problem" is just a spotty argument. "It only makes sense". Of course being attractive gives advantages in society but that's a different topic completely. I don't think fat acceptance should be lumped with feminism either.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
Admitting differences in average salary are due to different choices by men/women instead of an evil boss is still a step forward.
After that, arguing that there should be more equality in career choices becomes a worthy endeavor. Because let's face it, caring/artistic jobs will always pay less than engineering/finance etc. And it doesn't pay less because it's a job with a majority of women, it pays less because it's mostly non-profit (or low profit) jobs. So the solution to make things equal would be to have a 50% split in both category, men doing more caring jobs and women more "scientific" jobs.
Then you have the whole question of family/children, where there is clearly not an equality on how much time a man spend at home compared to a woman (on average). There would also be a need for a change there to be at equality, having men being more okay to spend time at home or working part time.
On March 31 2014 22:21 Ghostcom wrote: As an M.D., I am going to say that you should probably stop posting now. You are digging the hole you are already standing in deeper with every single post you make.
Nobody cares about your degree. You win a debate by presenting a stronger argument, not by saying you have a degree and then tell the other person to stop posting.
Do I really have to present an argument as to why genetics or thyroid disease can cause obesity in people with completely healthy eating habits? Let us not go full retard here... I didn't seek to win a debate, I sought to clarify that there was no debate to be had concerning this. I agree I could and probably should have skipped the appeal to authority, however it seemed appropriate to point out that I wasn't a layman.
i just skipped your post as if it was nothing more then .. well actually it was just nothing. a big fat nothing. thyroid disease goes both ways: it makes some people fat but it also makes some people skinny. ( makes is a strong word here; better suited would be prone to ). anyway, its a disease; hell, but let's just give them all pensions or something 'cause shit is not fair ...
and about the genetics part - you probably read the same things i do and bought it. i didn't. as such, i saw no point in arguing about beliefs.
i'm here:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
and think that those are/should be manageable by ones psyche.
even if you go with
Recently, scientists at Tufts University solved the mystery. They discovered that most of us have inherited a sluggish ADP gene that enables fat to be stored in our tissues very easily and slows down the way that fat it is burnt off or turned into energy
you still remain with the fact that the stored fat comes from food and only from food. the gene doesn't produce the fat out of/from nothing.
and the solution to that is:
The sluggish gene enabled what little food was available to be readily stored as fat. Fat deposits could then be used as a source of energy and help survival in times of famine.
famine
if you know how genes, by themselves, can make people fat, literally, then please do post.
Freely available article here. This is one of the first hits when searching Pubmed using the keywords "obesity" and "genetics" which yields more than 30.000 results. Do me a favour and read the first sentence in the paragraph called "Etiology".
I could keep on linking you articles proving that it is commonly accepted in the medical community that obesity is genetic (though not solely - as with almost everything else there is more than one causative factor and no single one is probably sufficient). It is truly ignorant to think obesity has a single causative factor.
the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
What are you guys arguing about? It looks like you're both arguing about genetics affecting your weight, but I'm pretty sure that's already well-established.
Sadly that is exactly what we are arguing as xM)Z seems to hold the conviction that obesity is only caused by an excessive food-intake by those weak of spirit.
On April 02 2014 22:14 Dark_Chill wrote: What are you guys arguing about? It looks like you're both arguing about genetics affecting your weight, but I'm pretty sure that's already well-established.
nope, we're debating the significance of it (and maybe the 'why') not whether it happens or not.
and nothing is well establish as far as adipocyte biology goes.
Obesity and the obesity-associated metabolic dysfunctions are a major health and economic burden. Adipocytesecreted proteins play an important role in obesity-associated disorders. Therefore it is essential to study the secreted factors of human (pre)adipocytes, not only to understand the underlying mechanisms of obesity-induced metabolic complications, but also to gain more insight in the regulation of weight gain, weight loss, weight re-gain and weight maintenance. This may aid the development of successful treatment strategies for obesity and its related complications. In vivostudies are usually confined to plasma and other body fluids and as such the results demonstrate the effect of an intervention but not the underlying molecular mechanisms. That is why in vitrostudies of human (pre)adipocytes and adipose tissue are necessary. Technical issues of proteomics technologies, including false positive identification, limited throughput, low sensitivity and quantification still do not allow identifying the complete (pre)adipocyte secretome. However, improved MS approaches developed during the last 10 years have helped to increase the understanding of the adipose tissue/adipocyte proteome and its regulation, including the adipocyte-secreted proteins. Nevertheless, much is still unknown about the molecular mechanisms responsible for the development of obesity and its metabolic complications, as well as strategies to improve the obesity-induced metabolic phenotype.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
On March 31 2014 22:21 Ghostcom wrote: As an M.D., I am going to say that you should probably stop posting now. You are digging the hole you are already standing in deeper with every single post you make.
Nobody cares about your degree. You win a debate by presenting a stronger argument, not by saying you have a degree and then tell the other person to stop posting.
Do I really have to present an argument as to why genetics or thyroid disease can cause obesity in people with completely healthy eating habits? Let us not go full retard here... I didn't seek to win a debate, I sought to clarify that there was no debate to be had concerning this. I agree I could and probably should have skipped the appeal to authority, however it seemed appropriate to point out that I wasn't a layman.
Thyroid diseases can be easily monitored by taking pills. My mom had hyperthyroid which caused her appetite to boom but then she did surgery TEN years ago so restore to its regular balance.
And genetics wise, well people were LESS fat before (statistically speaking). I've personally talked to people in 80s were saying that back when they were young, instead of playing video games and texting all day, they enjoyed themselves outside exploring the neighborhood. The obesity rate of the world is at an all time high. It isn't a coincidence that the rise of obesity have eclipsed along with the rise of fast food restaurant (and other interactive entertainment).
I hate to break it to you, Xiphos, but not everyone is like your mother. Thyroid diseases as a general category of disorders are not "easily monitored by taking pills". Similarly, talking to people in their 80s about their activities as youth does not exactly stand as a piece of actionable evidence past supporting the notion that it is indeed nice that you've taken time out of your day to speak to our elderly. Environment and activity patterns most certainly play a role in the prevalence of obesity but the prominence of this role in contrast with other factors is far from established. In other words, when it makes sense to say "it isn't a coincidence", you probably ought to check your conclusion at the door.
This ENTIRE thread pretty much consists of people giving good argument and people saying "No that's wrong w/ any evidence for rebuttal.". They are either trolls or just butthurt but can't find anything substantial to refute.
And if anyone had any education in science will tell you based upon the law of energy and metabolism will tell you that if you don't utilize the amount of energy you have digested (the calories), they will go into a "reserve" location in your body also known as fat.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
from your own quote: genetics control human body weight - agreed from beginning. the same genes that make one obese can make another one skinny based on gene function, gene behavior, gene expression and so on - very logical but no one knows why. they just point fingers at parents, mcdonalds, sedentarism and whatnot. exceedingly rare gene variants do exist which results in = obese person without the need of an '“obesogenic” environment' - disease, diabetes and others. being 'genetically predisposed' can make you fatt-ER then the skinny people while doing what they do - very logical; after all, you are different, it's normal you'd be affected differently by the same things.
On April 03 2014 00:18 Xiphos wrote: They are easily monitored though. I did some heavy research on this. Why don't you go and check it out by yourself by going to http://chealth.canoe.ca/drug_info_details.asp?brand_name_id=1202 for more information on that particular medicine.
This ENTIRE thread pretty much consists of people giving good argument and people saying "No that's wrong w/ any evidence for rebuttal.". They are either trolls or just butthurt but can't find anything substantial to refute.
And if anyone had any education in science will tell you based upon the law of energy and metabolism will tell you that if you don't utilize the amount of energy you have digested (the calories), they will go into a "reserve" location in your body also known as fat.
For someone so critical of others arguments, you sure do a poor job of substantiating your own. Linking a drug fact sheet alongside an assurance that you've done some "heavy research" on the topic does not, in fact, establish that thyroid diseases are categorically easy to treat and diagnose. Furthermore, your willingness to ad hoc conflate the law of energy conservation with the incredibly complicated concept of human metabolism speaks to a remarkably incomplete understanding as to how little we truly understand endocrinology. Yes, as a shorthand means of communication, calories in vs. calories out is a good starting place when it comes to diet and body mass but it is by no means the final destination.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
from your own quote: genetics control human body weight - agreed from beginning. the same genes that make one obese can make another one skinny based on gene function, gene behavior, gene expression and so on - very logical but no one knows why. they just point fingers at parents, mcdonalds, sedentarism and whatnot. exceedingly rare gene variants do exist which results in = obese person without the need of an '“obesogenic” environment' - disease, diabetes and others. being 'genetically predisposed' can make you fatt-ER then the skinny people while doing what they do - very logical; after all, you are different, it's normal you'd be affected differently by the same things.
This is a position with which I can entirely agree.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
from your own quote: genetics control human body weight - agreed from beginning. the same genes that make one obese can make another one skinny based on gene function, gene behavior, gene expression and so on - very logical but no one knows why. they just point fingers at parents, mcdonalds, sedentarism and whatnot. exceedingly rare gene variants do exist which results in = obese person without the need of an '“obesogenic” environment' - disease, diabetes and others. being 'genetically predisposed' can make you fatt-ER then the skinny people while doing what they do - very logical; after all, you are different, it's normal you'd be affected differently by the same things.
I don't propose to argue that genes entirely determine whether you are fat. A fat person exercising will lose a bit more weight than a fat person of the same genetic make up who did nothing. But genetic dispositions exist on a continuum, and I think it is unfair how you seem to paint fat people as generally.lazy and not.helping.thenselves. Some might be so genetically disposed to being fat that in order for them to take prevent measures like exercise requires a huge amount of will power as well as time and money. Fat people who are genetically disposed aren't weak willed - they just need more will power than us to exercise or diet or so on.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
from your own quote: genetics control human body weight - agreed from beginning. the same genes that make one obese can make another one skinny based on gene function, gene behavior, gene expression and so on - very logical but no one knows why. they just point fingers at parents, mcdonalds, sedentarism and whatnot. exceedingly rare gene variants do exist which results in = obese person without the need of an '“obesogenic” environment' - disease, diabetes and others. being 'genetically predisposed' can make you fatt-ER then the skinny people while doing what they do - very logical; after all, you are different, it's normal you'd be affected differently by the same things.
I don't propose to argue that genes entirely determine whether you are fat. A fat person exercising will lose a bit more weight than a fat person of the same genetic make up who did nothing. But genetic dispositions exist on a continuum, and I think it is unfair how you seem to paint fat people as generally.lazy and not.helping.thenselves. Some might be so genetically disposed to being fat that in order for them to take prevent measures like exercise requires a huge amount of will power as well as time and money. Fat people who are genetically disposed aren't weak willed - they just need more will power than us to exercise or diet or so on.
No one believes genetics does not play a rol in weight gain/loss. The issue is that rising levels of obesity and overweightness amongst a 300 million people country can be hardly atributed to genetics as the most important factor, and as such, the main contributors COULD be attributed to glutony, lack of self control, sedentarism and lack of understanding in basic nutrition.
On April 02 2014 21:18 xM(Z wrote: the ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov article is hogwash. it just tries to explain/make sense of what is happening after it happened without even thinking of what started it or how it came to be like this. its just a long series of remarks like: this like that because it is like that. a quote from one of the studies based on which that paper was made:
CONCLUSIONS: Genetic influences on BMI and abdominal adiposity are high in children born since the onset of the pediatric obesity epidemic.
what caused the onset?. genes started mutating randomly and boom: from now on, thou shalt be fat?. lets say you inherited your fat genes from your parents, your parents from their parents and so on; but then wait, their grandparents weren't fat. they were skinny ... so then what?, how?, whom?, all of a sudden?. also, they made the study on 8 to 11 yr olds. some kids as old as 3 can and do eat 3000 calories a day. those are already damaged goods.
the nature article, albeit old, it just says this:
Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
but with different words.
The adipocyte-specific hormone leptin, the product of the obese (ob) gene,regulates adipose-tissue mass through hypothalamic effects on satiety and energy expenditure1, 2, 3, 4
Mechanisms and actions of leptin Leptin acts as a hormone that modulates the size of the adipose tissues in the body. It regulates food intake and body weight. Leptin also acts on specific receptors in the hypothalamus to inhibit appetite through both counteractive and stimulatory mechanisms:
Leptin counteracts the effects of a feeding stimulant released in the gut called neuropeptide Y as well as the effects of a cannabinoid neurotransmitter called adandamide which stimulates appetite. Leptin also promotes the synthesis of an appetite suppressant called α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone
After a meeting where Friedman met Nobel Prize winner, Frenchman Roger Guillemin, he got a letter from him that he recalls saying, “I really liked what you had to say, but I have one quibble: you refer to these as obesity genes, but I think they are lean genes because the normal allele keeps you thin. But calling them lean genes sounds awkward. The nicest sounding root for thin is from Greek, so I propose you call ob and db ‘lepto-genes.’” So Friedman remembered Guillemin’s suggestion, and the hormone was named leptin.[16] Leptin was the first fat cell-derived hormone to be discovered. Subsequent studies confirmed that the db gene encoded the leptin receptor and that it was expressed in the hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to regulate food intake and body weight.
The discovery of leptin has led to the elucidation of a robust physiologic system that maintains fat stores at a relatively constant level, which has been widely validated in several experimental rodent obesity models; nevertheless adequate proof of its equivalent operation in humans remains elusive.
You didn't actually read the pubmed article did you? You do realise what you just called hogwash was peer-reviewed by medical experts? And that they actually do address your criticism?
More than 300 genetic loci that are potentially involved in human body weight regulation have been identified through analyses in humans, rodents, and C elegans.16,17 Some exceedingly rare gene variants affect gene function and behavior to such an extent that obesity results even without a particularly “obesogenic” environment (Figure 2), but the vast majority of genetic factors are presumed to affect body weight enough to cause obesity only when specific environmental conditions pertain.
You keep trying to make it out as if I or anyone else has claimed genetics to be the single causative factor - which it obviously isn't. That however isn't what we are arguing. Your initial statement was this:
On March 31 2014 18:23 xM(Z wrote:also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however.
I think I have sufficiently refuted that statement (obviously such a thing as being genetically predisposed does exist and can make you fat).
from your own quote: genetics control human body weight - agreed from beginning. the same genes that make one obese can make another one skinny based on gene function, gene behavior, gene expression and so on - very logical but no one knows why. they just point fingers at parents, mcdonalds, sedentarism and whatnot. exceedingly rare gene variants do exist which results in = obese person without the need of an '“obesogenic” environment' - disease, diabetes and others. being 'genetically predisposed' can make you fatt-ER then the skinny people while doing what they do - very logical; after all, you are different, it's normal you'd be affected differently by the same things.
I don't propose to argue that genes entirely determine whether you are fat. A fat person exercising will lose a bit more weight than a fat person of the same genetic make up who did nothing. But genetic dispositions exist on a continuum, and I think it is unfair how you seem to paint fat people as generally.lazy and not.helping.thenselves. Some might be so genetically disposed to being fat that in order for them to take prevent measures like exercise requires a huge amount of will power as well as time and money. Fat people who are genetically disposed aren't weak willed - they just need more will power than us to exercise or diet or so on.
No one believes genetics does not play a rol in weight gain/loss. The issue is that rising levels of obesity and overweightness amongst a 300 million people country can be hardly atributed to genetics as the most important factor, and as such, the main contributors COULD be attributed to glutony, lack of self control, sedentarism and lack of understanding in basic nutrition.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men.
i literally listed this as the first point. You are deciding what a movement you're not a part of is, but you are inaccurate to say the least.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those statements are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
My favorite quotes.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
"Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic. I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor," Radersma said. "I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply imbedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
Highlights from the National White Privilege Conference in Madison + Show Spoiler +
How can a man tell you what it is like to be a women? I think that makes sense. And I agree with the 2nd one too. I am filled with deep rooted racist thoughts, and to try to get rid of them, I must be conscious of them whenever they effect me.
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?
do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
I just want to say that this claim is utter bullshit. I go to one of the top computer science and engineering schools in the country, and we used to have a 7% proportion of women in Computer Science. Since then, it's risen to 42%, and for my year, 47% by helping change the peer culture and studying different ways to present the material. Women aren't afraid of Computer science because it's hard. In fact, they very much become interested in it and find it as a great tool for helping them accomplish their goals in a broader context of helping the world. So yeah, your misogynistic claim has been proven bullshit by the brilliant computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon, and in fact, it was proven bullshit decades earlier when a woman, named Grace Hopper, was actually one of the pioneers of computer science.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
This whole argument is like arguing that republicans created the voter ID law to actually help curb voting frauds when in reality they do it in order to decrease democrats participation. When you ask a republican lawmaker straight up. They are going to say that they are doing it because of "voter fraud." Of course they are not going to admit in public their true intention. That would be stupid.
With that said, how are these misconceptions? You don't explain anything.
Your logic is quite flaw when you said that "They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?)"
If I dress like a policeman out in public and i'm not a policeman. I can't blame other people for seeing me as a policeman. If you dress up like a slut you should expect other people to treat you like a slut. What, you want women to do whatever they want without consequence just because they are women? Is that what you want?
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
On April 04 2014 05:09 Zealos wrote: How can a man tell you what it is like to be a women? I think that makes sense. And I agree with the 2nd one too. I am filled with deep rooted racist thoughts, and to try to get rid of them, I must be conscious of them whenever they effect me.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.
With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.
On April 03 2014 23:56 kwizach wrote: [quote] From the "article": [quote] I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
My favorite quotes.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.
With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.
Well personally I read it as she feel women are superior and men cannot and should not teach or discuss women issues. That a gender is incapable of understanding some ideology. Don't you think that sounds like women should be above men, especially regarding feminism?
Feminism isnt even about gender equality anymore. Its about how far can you stick your thumb inside the wound and convince the man he deserves it.
On April 04 2014 00:09 ComaDose wrote: [quote] or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
My favorite quotes.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.
With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.
Well personally I read it as she feel women are superior and men cannot and should not teach or discuss women issues. That a gender is incapable of understanding some ideology. Don't you think that sounds like women should be above men, especially regarding feminism?
She's not saying that men can't understand things because they're dumb, she's arguing that someone in a position of privilege can't understand what that privilege means the way the oppressed group do. I disagree with her and think her position is really dumb but look at the context, it's at a privilege convention, of course a speaker is talking about privilege, that's literally what it's for. A speaker at a privilege convention is not the final word on feminism and you have removed that quote from all context and replaced it with "all feminists think all men are dumb".
You're either way too stupid to understand that her statement, while dumb, was clearly talking about privilege and not men being mentally incapable or you're deliberately twisting the truth. Whichever it is you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
Men and women aren't equal. We were made this way on purpose.
I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
On April 04 2014 00:09 ComaDose wrote: [quote] or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
My favorite quotes.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.
With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.
Well personally I read it as she feel women are superior and men cannot and should not teach or discuss women issues. That a gender is incapable of understanding some ideology. Don't you think that sounds like women should be above men, especially regarding feminism?
no.... where did she say women are superior? she specifically says people of colour are better at teaching what racism is like too.
Feminism isnt even about gender equality anymore. Its about how far can you stick your thumb inside the wound and convince the man he deserves it.
what wound? how are you hurting as a man in today's society?
In my eyes, "being a feminist" means fighting for equality of gender in a society where women are generally at a disadvantage (don't deny it). I am a male feminist. Sue me.
On April 04 2014 00:09 ComaDose wrote: [quote] or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
Well in reality such a thing is/would be very hard to prove, since feminist can just reject those things are going on. However seminar, lectures about how evil white men (or just white people in general) are however happening.
My favorite quotes.
"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."
Is this feminism? Or simply a lunatic given a microphone?
It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.
With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.
Well personally I read it as she feel women are superior and men cannot and should not teach or discuss women issues. That a gender is incapable of understanding some ideology. Don't you think that sounds like women should be above men, especially regarding feminism?
Feminism isnt even about gender equality anymore. Its about how far can you stick your thumb inside the wound and convince the man he deserves it.
Like Kwark explained, the speaker was talking about the respective experiences of men and women with regards to the privileged/oppressed divide between men and women. She was saying that since a man cannot experience exactly what it feels like to be a woman with respect to women's oppressed status (which is true), a man cannot truly teach someone else about feminism (which I disagree with). This doesn't mean that women are above men in any way, but simply that their experiences differ with respect to the phenomenon. Likewise, she could just as well be saying that it is impossible for a woman to experience exactly what it feels like to be a man with respect to their privileged status. I disagree with her position on what this means with regards to one's ability to speak about feminism, but her argument should not be misconstrued as her saying that women are better than men, or that they should be above men.
Feminism is still absolutely about gender equality.
On April 04 2014 08:50 Quakecomm wrote: In my eyes, "being a feminist" means fighting for equality of gender in a society where women are generally at a disadvantage (don't deny it). I am a male feminist. Sue me.
they are gonna take you for all your ESPORTS dollars. In my eyes, "being a feminist" means being against oppression against women. We are gonna take over the world.
Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 03 2014 23:56 kwizach wrote: [quote] From the "article": [quote] I think "five reasons why this author should do a little research before spouting nonsense on a topic she has very little understanding of" would be a better title.
or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.
Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:23 hunts wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:18 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:15 hunts wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:09 ComaDose wrote: [quote] or "an accurate collection of misconceptions about feminism" + Show Spoiler +
also form the article: - Feminists don't want to be equal with men, they want to overpower men. - Also, notice that feminists never encourage women to become construction workers or welders. - Men and women were made FOR each other. (what?) - I want you to do just as much as any man can do out there, and if you can match his production, then you can get your equal pay. Let's see how long you last. - But wait, you don't want to have the same job as this welder. No, you'd rather be above him and dictate his every move as CEO, because you're a power hungry, self righteous bitch. - Through a feminist's eyes, women who choose to stay at home are viewed as being victims of oppression. - They believe that the freedom of being able to have an abortion is "empowering."(this whole point is a lot of "what the fuck" its like she forgot the title of the point was freedom to have, not having) - They also say that men objectify women (aka, see them as a piece of meat), but that a woman should be able to dress however she desires without being stared down or lusted after by men. (are you trying to say this is a bad thing?) - That's just how a man's brain is wired. (then she admits men objectify women and its a biotruth) - I was raised by a father who loved me, protected me, and showed me what true masculinity was. (true masculinity?) - I don't need some feminist telling me how I should dress, act, shave, think, vote, educate myself, and work (no one does that)
i'd actually be pretty embarrassed to link that.
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.
Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.
The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more.
With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal.
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:23 hunts wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:18 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:15 hunts wrote: [quote]
You attack the small details and yet ignore the main point. Feminists don't want equality, they want to be above men. They don't want to work the same jobs as men, they just want to work the top jobs and to have men work the physical labor jobs. They don't want to be in construction with men, they want to be their bosses, even if they aren't qualified to. Women already have equality, but feminists find more and more absurd things to cry about in America.
None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.
I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.
Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.
The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more.
With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal.
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
The point should not be to stop using the term feminism because some are misguided as to what feminism means - it should be to educate those people who are misguided either about the movement and/or about sexist stereotypes. There is nothing that "hurts equality" in having feminism - in fact, one could argue having "equalism" instead of feminism is probably what would, in reality, "hurt equality", since it would hide where most substantial disadvantages lie. Having the term "feminism" may help to better sensitize, when they do some research on the topic, people who were previously unaware of some of the disadvantages affecting women.
On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote: As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
Well, then, you side with the people who are wrong. Since you mention the APA, let me direct you to this page from their website:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think.
[...] The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college.
Nobody is denying that there are some differences. But innate differences are minor, and the impact of inherent biological differences pales in comparison to the influence of environment on neural development. Innate biological sex differences aren't the relevant variable to explain structural differences in career choices - culture is.
On April 02 2014 08:25 kwizach wrote: [quote] Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:23 hunts wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:18 kwizach wrote: [quote] None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.
I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit
Having "a lot of freaking power", whatever that is supposed to mean, isn't having as much power as half of the population should have. Women remain extremely less numerous than men in positions of power, at all levels and in most domains. Gender roles continue to steer men and women towards career choices which benefit men more than women. General normative standards generally continue to favor men more than women (for an example, see the norms surrounding sexual conduct - what is often accepted, and even encouraged, for a man, and frowned upon for a woman, in terms of sexual activity). I could go on.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:23 hunts wrote: [quote]
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.
I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit
Having "a lot of freaking power", whatever that is supposed to mean, isn't having as much power as half of the population should have. Women remain extremely less numerous than men in positions of power, at all levels and in most domains. Gender roles continue to steer men and women towards career choices which benefit men more than women. General normative standards generally continue to favor men more than women (for an example, see the norms surrounding sexual conduct - what is often accepted, and even encouraged, for a man, and frowned upon for a woman, in terms of sexual activity). I could go on.
So, yeah, you think wrong.
how can you expect women to compete at the same level as men in the most demanding and stressful jobs when they devote so much time to child birth and raising the young? The male has a huge advantage in that he can marry late, thus devote most of his youth into his career and progress upward. Women on the other hand, most of them are thinking about marriage and children because there is a biological drive there. To procreate before 30's, and by the time that happens of course they are at a disadvantage to men.
Are you perhaps suggesting, that we ignore our genetic chromosomes and pretend to be some unisex creatures in a attempt to be equal?
On April 02 2014 10:15 kwizach wrote: [quote] As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote: [quote] For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.
I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit
Having "a lot of freaking power", whatever that is supposed to mean, isn't having as much power as half of the population should have. Women remain extremely less numerous than men in positions of power, at all levels and in most domains. Gender roles continue to steer men and women towards career choices which benefit men more than women. General normative standards generally continue to favor men more than women (for an example, see the norms surrounding sexual conduct - what is often accepted, and even encouraged, for a man, and frowned upon for a woman, in terms of sexual activity). I could go on.
So, yeah, you think wrong.
how can you expect women to compete at the same level as men in the most demanding and stressful jobs when they devote so much time to child birth and raising the young? The male has a huge advantage in that he can marry late, thus devote most of his youth into his career and progress upward. Women on the other hand, most of them are thinking about marriage and children because there is a biological drive there. To procreate before 30's, and by the time that happens of course they are at a disadvantage to men.
Are you perhaps suggesting, that we ignore our genetic chromosomes and pretend to be some unisex creatures in a attempt to be equal?
Remind me why women should necessarily be the ones "raising the young"? And "thinking about having babies" hardly explains the difference in career choices, since those chosen by women are often just as demanding in terms of hours (not to mention that your picturing of women as devoting "so much time to child birth" is in itself caricatural). Procreation is, however, the reason why achieving paid parental leave is a major feminist accomplishment.
You ignored most of what I just said, by the way.
No, I do not pretend that we are unisex creatures. Perhaps you should be paying attention to what I'm writing instead of using strawmen?
On April 02 2014 08:25 kwizach wrote: [quote] Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account).
But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned.
So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed.
So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences?
As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
The first nine chapters of the book do an excellent job of outlining the current research to date. The arguments are on point, and describe the variables, both present and missing (or purposely ommited). Jordan-Young should be commended for the first nine chapters. However, Chapter 10, which I assume to be her thesis argument on the subject matter of sex difference, is flawed and strays completely from the argument outlined in the first nine chapters. Chapter 10 becomes a feminist diatribe that has lost all focus on brain organization as well as sex difference in general. Jordan-Young loses perspective and fails in the overall debate.
Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.
Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).
I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.
You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.
To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.
Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.
This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?
Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.
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.
On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote: What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.
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.
On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:
On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:59 ffadicted wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:35 kwizach wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:23 hunts wrote:
On April 04 2014 00:18 kwizach wrote: [quote] None of what you just said is true.
Go on... Or did you just plan on denying what I said and not actually providing any sort of evidence or counter argument? That's not a very good way to argue, just going "nope."
For me to provide a counter-argument, there needs to be an argument in the first place. You just listed a series of things that, according to you, "feminists" want or don't want, and those things are not true. How about you provide "any sort of evidence" to support your claim that feminists "want to be above men"?
You guys are the best debaters ever lol Two ppl providing 0 evidence for their claims and demanding the other one provide some for his.
He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.
the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.
Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.
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.
The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.
I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"
Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.
Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?
I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.
My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.
seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.
I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit
Things like the mother getting custody by default are both no longer necessarily true and something that feminism is fighting against. But it's an excellent example of how a gender role can linger in social values and prejudices long after it was legally addressed and changed. Throughout the vast majority of the developed world custody issues are legally judged according to the best interest of the child with no prejudice against either parent and yet, despite legal equality, fathers are routinely discriminated against due to the assumptions of gender roles within the system. If you can recognise this injustice, which critics of feminism routinely do, then how can you argue that legal equality has eradicated the social prejudices against women found elsewhere.
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.
Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.
The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more.
With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal.
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
The point should not be to stop using the term feminism because some are misguided as to what feminism means - it should be to educate those people who are misguided either about the movement and/or about sexist stereotypes. There is nothing that "hurts equality" in having feminism - in fact, one could argue having "equalism" instead of feminism is probably what would, in reality, "hurt equality", since it would hide where most substantial disadvantages lie. Having the term "feminism" may help to better sensitize, when they do some research on the topic, people who were previously unaware of some of the disadvantages affecting women.
On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote: As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
Well, then, you side with the people who are wrong. Since you mention the APA, let me direct you to this page from their website:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think.
[...] The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college.
Nobody is denying that there are some differences. But innate differences are minor, and the impact of inherent biological differences pales in comparison to the influence of environment on neural development. Innate biological sex differences aren't the relevant variable to explain structural differences in career choices - culture is.
As I said in my post, I'm not going to get into the argument. I posted my stance on it merely to put it out there, not to discuss my evidence because I'm not committing the time to gathering it all. So it's nice that you put that there, and I've read it, but I've read articles that contradict that. So I'm no longer going to be discussing that point as it will only devolve into me explaining my point without evidence and someone wanting the evidence on my point.
As for main discussion we've been having. Not surprisingly, educating the ignorant or misinformed about feminisim with an already misunderstood belief is an incredibly hard and pointless battle. The same battle can be often seen between the scientific and religious communities. It just devolves into a rock throwing contest because neither side (whether right or wrong) will agree that the other is right. And as stupid as it sounds, changing the word we use for the same cause can often bring the many who are misinformed into the correctly informed. The idea is similar if not identical to a marketing tool. Put out a product that garners very unfavorable reviews, change the products name with improvements to the product and the existing opinion of the original product is often not applied to the product with the changed name.
As an example of a similar idea, the game "War Z" was released as a finished product, even though it actually played like it was an alpha. Then, several weeks to a few months later, it was re-released with many improvements and under a different name "Infestation: Survivor Stories."
Also, I feel compelled to correct you and the many others. Feminism, by definition, is the movement for gaining social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. It is solely specific for women to gain the rights that men have that women don't.
Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't, not vice-verse. So it's a pseudo-equality if you will. So I apologize for not correctly conveying that there. I incorrectly summarized the definition, as it's incredibly long. I will go back and edit that so it's clear.
On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote: Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will.
But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote: Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will.
But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
Edited the post above which answers this. tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry.
On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote: Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will.
But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
Edited the post above which answers this. tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry.
I wrote "while preserving the meaning of the word equal" whereas what you've just done is changed your point to include "pseudo-equality" which appears to be a made up word pairing with a meaning opposite to the word "equal". That's not how language works. If I were to say "the sky is down" and you were to call me out on it would you let me get away with clarifying that I meant "pseudo-down" which is how you explain that something is up? If not, why do you expect to get away with "pseudo-equality" as a way of explaining that two things are not equal?
On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote: Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will.
But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
Edited the post above which answers this. tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry.
I wrote "while preserving the meaning of the word equal" whereas what you've just done is changed your point to include "pseudo-equality" which appears to be a made up word pairing with a meaning opposite to the word "equal". That's not how language works. If I were to say "the sky is down" and you were to call me out on it would you let me get away with clarifying that I meant "pseudo-down" which is how you explain that something is up? If not, why do you expect to get away with "pseudo-equality" as a way of explaining that two things are not equal?
Because equal/equality wasn't the correct word I should have used. pseudo-equality, on the other hand, is the more accurate word that should have been used. So there would have been no way for me to answer you question correctly since the term I used was incorrect to begin with. Happy? If not, I don't care. I've gotten pretty tired of this feminist debate because it just devolves into nothing. We aren't going to get anywhere with passive aggressive posts such as yours, and people aren't going to become more aware of inequality until something significant happens that makes equality a much more hot button issue in the western world, which is extremely unfortunate, but how things work nowadays.
I am a feminist, a man and someone who finds the feminist intellectual framework and body of research useful for addressing the problems faced by men in society which, as a feminist, I care about. What you're saying, when you're not destroying the meaning of words, is that I can't exist because of pseudo somehow.
Kwark gets you on semantics men, just stop trying. feminism is what happens when Kwark believes in fairy tales. there is nothing wrong with having believes, morals, principles, unquestionable opinions about an agenda or another. if feminism is what Kwark thinks it is, then bravo, everything is/will be fine and dandy; but what if it's not Kwark?, what if it's not?. feminism is not controlled by any person/group/council/shared ideology/shared agenda/law, civil or otherwise. when shit hits the fan, whomever group will have the most power will impose itself, while others will just go into opposition and become ... terrorists?. you have to nip the stupid feminist ideas in the bud not let them grow until they become religions 'cause that only breeds terrorists/militants. until feminism gets its shit together, everything they stand for is up for grabs.
Kwark, you should preach your feminist ideologies to women first but hmm ... you're a man and men can't teach feminism to women ... that's quite the pickle isn't it?.
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote: if feminism is what Kwark thinks it is, then bravo, everything is/will be fine and dandy; but what if it's not Kwark?, what if it's not?.
What if it's a dragon!?!? That'd be awesome. But if it was Hitler then that'd be less awesome. What if you actually had a point rather than just open questions?!? What then!?
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote: feminism is not controlled by any person/group/council/shared ideology/shared agenda/law, civil or otherwise. when shit hits the fan, whomever group will have the most power will impose itself, while others will just go into opposition and become ... terrorists?. you have to nip the stupid feminist ideas in the bud not let them grow until they become religions 'cause that only breeds terrorists/militants.
That's a serious point which we should all treat seriously and not dismiss out of hand while laughing at you. Right now they might be reblogging each other's shit on tumblr but it's a slippery slope from that to planes flying into towers, people often overlook Al Qaeda's rapid transition from blogging to terrorism. Better nip that movement that's been going on for over a century now in the bud, if you leave it any longer it may get out of hand.
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote: Kwark, you should preach your feminist ideologies to women first but hmm ... you're a man and men can't teach feminism to women ... that's quite the pickle isn't it?.
I'm of the opinion I can and that anyone telling someone they can't do something based upon their gender is bad at feminism.
just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man. i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
On April 04 2014 16:53 xM(Z wrote: just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man. i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
You have nothing. You have no arguments or responses to Kwark, I'm kinda surprised he's even bothering to respond to you anymore. EDIT: I mean, re-read your post. You're making a vague complaint about posts in another thread, and then telling him he's a martyr. Good response.
On April 04 2014 16:53 xM(Z wrote: just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man. i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
When you did your "what if it's something else?" speech and I suggested you meant literally anything from a dragon to Hitler I thought I was using hyperbole to show that feminism couldn't be literally anything and that perhaps you should narrow it down. I was really not expecting you to follow that up with the argument that we need to oppose feminism now, and indeed always, so we can be ready when feminism inevitably annexes Crimea.
Well done sir, you have followed through on your initial vagueness with fantastic form and I confess that if we need to have a deterrence plan to stop everything from doing anything ever then I am indeed lacking and will be martyred when they march braless down the streets of Sevastopol.
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.
naw man no ones crying, its just a more relative statistic when discussing the wage gape and glass ceiling. its about letting everyone do what ever job they want. It's a pretty broad statement you're making that no women want to work those jobs. I'm aware of support for women in auto mechanics for example.
i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that.
i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums. what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?. have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...). how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?.
Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism.
then as a conclusion, hit me with
Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment?
as if it matters.
i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it. that, is what i call being a feminist.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
or just google "The Demon Lover" by her.
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins
and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ...
On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote: Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).
Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.
Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.
For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.
Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.
Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.
The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more.
With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal.
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
The point should not be to stop using the term feminism because some are misguided as to what feminism means - it should be to educate those people who are misguided either about the movement and/or about sexist stereotypes. There is nothing that "hurts equality" in having feminism - in fact, one could argue having "equalism" instead of feminism is probably what would, in reality, "hurt equality", since it would hide where most substantial disadvantages lie. Having the term "feminism" may help to better sensitize, when they do some research on the topic, people who were previously unaware of some of the disadvantages affecting women.
On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote: As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence.
Well, then, you side with the people who are wrong. Since you mention the APA, let me direct you to this page from their website:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think.
[...] The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college.
Nobody is denying that there are some differences. But innate differences are minor, and the impact of inherent biological differences pales in comparison to the influence of environment on neural development. Innate biological sex differences aren't the relevant variable to explain structural differences in career choices - culture is.
As I said in my post, I'm not going to get into the argument. I posted my stance on it merely to put it out there, not to discuss my evidence because I'm not committing the time to gathering it all. So it's nice that you put that there, and I've read it, but I've read articles that contradict that. So I'm no longer going to be discussing that point as it will only devolve into me explaining my point without evidence and someone wanting the evidence on my point.
Ok, fair enough.
On April 04 2014 13:35 Ercster wrote: As for main discussion we've been having. Not surprisingly, educating the ignorant or misinformed about feminisim with an already misunderstood belief is an incredibly hard and pointless battle. The same battle can be often seen between the scientific and religious communities. It just devolves into a rock throwing contest because neither side (whether right or wrong) will agree that the other is right. And as stupid as it sounds, changing the word we use for the same cause can often bring the many who are misinformed into the correctly informed. The idea is similar if not identical to a marketing tool. Put out a product that garners very unfavorable reviews, change the products name with improvements to the product and the existing opinion of the original product is often not applied to the product with the changed name.
As an example of a similar idea, the game "War Z" was released as a finished product, even though it actually played like it was an alpha. Then, several weeks to a few months later, it was re-released with many improvements and under a different name "Infestation: Survivor Stories."
I don't see how what you suggest applies to this particular debate. You argue that people who do not understand, or are uninformed about, the disadvantages that women face, and who therefore hold misguided beliefs on the topic, are unlikely to be successfully educated on the issue. How would that change if we abandoned "feminism" and promoted "equalism" instead? Sure, they would adhere to "equalism" (except, obviously, those who do not want equality), but they would still hold their misguided beliefs and educating them on the issue would require just as much, if not more (since we would not have a movement addressing the specificity of the disadvantages faced by women), effort. Only using the term "equalism" could very well prevent them from further questioning the specificity of the oppressed status of women. Having feminism highlights instead that women are still on the oppressed side in most instances of differences between the sexes in our societies.
On April 04 2014 13:35 Ercster wrote: Also, I feel compelled to correct you and the many others. Feminism, by definition, is the movement for gaining social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. It is solely specific for women to gain the rights that men have that women don't.
As Kwark explained, feminism is about fighting for equality between women and men. It does not aim to preserve women advantages in areas where women have advantages.
On April 05 2014 00:05 xM(Z wrote: i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that.
i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums. what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?. have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...). how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?.
Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment?
as if it matters.
i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it. that, is what i call being a feminist.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
or just google "The Demon Lover" by her.
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins
and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ...
Hold on 2 secs, why are you hating on feminism, when there are men saying stuff like this: “Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” – Joseph Stalin “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.” – Robert Mugabe “You cannot run faster than a bullet.” – Idi Amin “We need not fear the judgement of history. Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?” – Adolf Hitler
Why are you wasting time hating on the feminist movement, when the "Being a man" movement is so hateful?
On April 05 2014 00:05 xM(Z wrote: i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that.
i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums. what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?. have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...). how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?.
Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism.
then as a conclusion, hit me with
Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment?
as if it matters.
i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it. that, is what i call being a feminist.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
or just google "The Demon Lover" by her.
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins
and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ...
Hold on 2 secs, why are you hating on feminism, when there are men saying stuff like this: “Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” – Joseph Stalin “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.” – Robert Mugabe “You cannot run faster than a bullet.” – Idi Amin “We need not fear the judgement of history. Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?” – Adolf Hitler
Why are you wasting time hating on the feminist movement, when the "Being a man" movement is so hateful?
Are you trolling or retarded? Being a man =/= being a genocide There is a difference between being a man and being a man activist (dunno how they are called), which none of the guys cited are. Morever, Comunism and Nazism are forms of colectivism, closer to feminism than other opposed ideologies, such as anarchism or libertarianism.
And those cunts (yes, I am using derogatory words) are not much better than Hitler or Stalin. If they were man saying the same (replacing men with women) they would be censored, fined and maybe even face jail time.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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 06:48 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 06:48 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.
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.
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] ).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, this proves attempts have been made at correcting the effects of structural gender cultural biases favoring men.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I find myself agreeing on a few points with Jumperer actually to my eternal shame, albeit much of it is nonsense to me.
Anyway I am totally, utterly sick of this kind of discussion as it oft occurs on the internet, anyone recommend me some good books on genderisation and that kind of thing? Lighthearted pop philosophy or weighty academic tomes, just would like to educate myself a bit further without having to deal with the shouting and the pissing contests.
On April 09 2014 04:17 Wombat_NI wrote: I find myself agreeing on a few points with Jumperer actually to my eternal shame, albeit much of it is nonsense to me.
Anyway I am totally, utterly sick of this kind of discussion as it oft occurs on the internet, anyone recommend me some good books on genderisation and that kind of thing? Lighthearted pop philosophy or weighty academic tomes, just would like to educate myself a bit further without having to deal with the shouting and the pissing contests.
Martha Nussbaum's book, Sex and Social Justice is pretty good and her essay "Objectification" is also excellent.
On April 09 2014 02:55 Yoav wrote: 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.
You are making a huge train of assumptions if you think the natural conclusion of believing in the Hebrew monotheist ethical system implies we have to accept the concept of "patriarchy" and that women are denied their rights in the western civilization (which I do not agree, on muslim countries I would agree)
If we are going to systematically discriminate in favor of one half of the population and against the other, we need mountains of unquestionable proof that this the right thing to do.
On the other hand, I believe in equality against the law all for all human beings, and as such consider my duty to oppose feminism or any other form of disguised discrimination against sub groups within society, however big they might be.
On April 09 2014 12:49 cam connor wrote: if you believe in equality you're literally a feminist
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude." - F,A, Hayek
On April 09 2014 12:49 cam connor wrote: if you believe in equality you're literally a feminist
No, that's egalitarianism.
Feminism is a means of reaching equality just like gay rights is a means of reaching equality for LGBT people. They both fit under the banner of egalitarianism.
On April 09 2014 12:49 cam connor wrote: if you believe in equality you're literally a feminist
No, that's egalitarianism.
Feminism is a means of reaching equality just like gay rights is a means of reaching equality for LGBT people. They both fit under the banner of egalitarianism.
Try speaking to a feminist about the issues any of the groups they consider "privileged" face.
Currently I am taking a course in women's studies and there are 2 out of 25~ students who probably wouldn't be able to hold a decent conversation with someone who had differing views. Unfortunately these two are the most vocal but unfortunately this sort of thing just goes with the territory. That being said everyone else I have met in the class could probably discuss the issues.
I would like to hear the opinion of Kwark / kwizach on women's quota with managers /CEOs to be legally set for companies. Isnt that fighting the symptoms (some would say with bad side effects) rather than trying to create a society where chances are equal.
On April 09 2014 20:39 puppykiller wrote: Currently I am taking a course in women's studies and there are 2 out of 25~ students who probably wouldn't be able to hold a decent conversation with someone who had differing views. Unfortunately these two are the most vocal but unfortunately this sort of thing just goes with the territory. That being said everyone else I have met in the class could probably discuss the issues.
Often it's those kinds of people that opponents use for their feminist stereotype. Most groups in society have some percent of people I just can't stand. One has to look past that
The sentence "Try speaking to a feminist about the issues any of the groups they consider "privileged" face." contains generalizations as to which individuals that would call themselves or are feminists for example.
Edit:
On April 09 2014 16:47 mdb wrote: Two unequal things cant be equal.
I didn't write this to troll or be silly, albeit it might seem this way.
Two things that are not the same can still be considered equal in some sense. For example, consider a red circle and a red rectangle. They are equal in color but not in shape.
That's the issue though. There are people like that in any group , but the people you're trying to influence often can't 'look past it'. It frustrates me no end that people want to see a shift in societal norms, but refuse to engage in a less antagonistic engagement with those of differing views in order to achieve it.
So are these people no true feminists? Was the National Organization for Women representative of feminists when they drove Farrell away from them by saying women should be prioritized in custody cases? Is this a hilarious caricature made as a parody or something telling about the slow slide into extremism modern feminism is undergoing. Seriously guys I used to consider myself a hard left leaning progressive and I'm slowly becoming a centrist, despite changing none of my beliefs, because the spectrum seems to be moving under my feet. Like, this [nsfw] shit, it's completely unfathomable to me how people can do this and expect not to be seen as the bad guys. I don't see how people can be comfortable being under the same banner as these people. Even on a lesser level, whenever I hear about feminists these days it's never about activism to stop the horrific shit happening in India or the Middle-East, it's American universities campaigning against "micro aggressions", or twitter activists not understanding satire or gender studies professors attacking kids over abortion. Do you blame me for just not believing it's just a vocal minority any more?
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
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.
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.
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
Well personally I take what I can learn from it and don't associate with individuals that get off doing that kind of a thing. Even my professor herself intensely controls class discussions and misconstrues students statements in a way that I see as really negative and immature but that doesn't deter me from some of the really interesting insights I have learned from looking at the core values of feminism. Dodging the feminist label because you perceive it to have connotations that you find uber negative doesn't really make any statements about you having shifting viewpoints just as you were saying. That being said not everyone is shying away from the word so hopefully you don't associate individuals commenting in this thread who may label themselves as feminists as being linked to that...
I think you are wrong Rock. Feminism is lots of things. Your current view is a bit like calling every socialist a communist.
Farrell seems to have left NOW since he didn't agree with the organization's stance regarding joint custody. I agree with him there. The real criticism against him seems to be because of a piece he wrote regarding rape. And especially this sentence: "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." The youtube clip calls the quote out of context. But it isn't really.
"And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."
How about just having people say yes when they mean it? I actually get his point, but it's pretty offensive to someone who said no and got raped. Have fun trying to get the perpetrator convicted if he just misread the cues.
The piece from FriaTider was a real wtf-moment. Seems to be pure bullshit. I'm amazed they even found 35 people who shared that view and isn't under 20!
Edit: By the way, as to the discussion about who and who isn't a feminist. I consider myself a feminist. I don't see it as urgently needed as 50 years ago here in Sweden, but in other countries I'm bothered by the gender inequality. I see gender inequality as strongly intertwined with inequality in society as a whole though. One of these can not come at the expense of the other.
On April 09 2014 23:09 Wombat_NI wrote: That's the issue though. There are people like that in any group , but the people you're trying to influence often can't 'look past it'. It frustrates me no end that people want to see a shift in societal norms, but refuse to engage in a less antagonistic engagement with those of differing views in order to achieve it.
Antagonizing the other party is not the problem though, because that's oftentimes how social change comes about. The feminists who fought for the right to vote and the various other things that they now have, they didn't do it by staying in the kitchen. They took the the streets and shouted loudly against oppression. They targeted their enemy and went after them. At the time, it was easier though; most men were the enemy, or supported the status quo. The problem is that there's a small minority of extremist feminists who are not antagonizing people who are NOT the problem, and don't really support the status quo.
Sexism still obviously exists and it's a problem that we have to deal with, and proper feminists will show this by bringing up the various inequalities which persist to this day in most countries, states/provinces/cities or sometimes informally in certain subcultures. Explaining that it's there is only the first step, because change doesn't come from pointing out a problem, because merely raising awareness about a perceived injustice won't fix the problem on its own. The issues are sometimes subtle and deeply ingrained in our daily lives.
Anita Sarkeesian is a good example of someone who's doing counterproductive work. She's raising awareness that the gaming industry, largely based around the consumption of videogames by a majority of males, often has male fantasy elements in them.... not unlike pornography, big fucking cars, beer, etc. All those things show that certain industries do in fact favor male "interests" which are thought to be prevalent according to market studies. Is there sexism? Certainly. Does the fact that the gaming industry develop games based around male interests represent sexism? Not necessarily, it's just capitalism at work. Market studies show that the best demographic to sell full-priced games to is men, make games for them, make money. There are two elements at play: men sometimes enjoy games with sexist themes (whether or not they carry this with them in their life), and men have their big male fantasies where they shoot up a bunch of guys. Now that I have this information, what the fuck am I to do with it? I've saved princess peach, I've played game with male fantasy themes in them and have enjoyed many of those. So how does showing me a list of possibly sexist cultural elements in games do for me? Nothing. So what does it do? Well it gets people riled up because it antagonizes people who are essentially innocent.
It's bad to attack the wrong people, because no one wins when Sarkeesian does that. Change will not stem from her very shortsighted approach, but there's worse than her out there. There's the fact that some of them have now decided to antagonize "liberal, cisgendered white males" as a classification of people who are hostile to feminism. I happen to be one of those, and I consider myself to be 100% for equality between men and women, but I'm critical of the means that are used because they're simply ineffective, sometimes even counterproductive, and in some cases even a bit immoral.
The term "cis"' short for "cisgendered" (gender identity where an individual's experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth), is now used by some feminists as a derogatory label to attack white men in general because they're representative of their oppression no matter what they do. So you're the enemy. I'm the enemy. Unless I admit that I'm the enemy, in which case I'm still just a less dangerous enemy.
And by writing this and questioning the methods used by the minority of extremist feminists, I'm automatically tagged as a sexist person by them, because a man like myself surely can't have positive intentions. When I do the same thing and criticize people who hold political affiliations which are close to mine, I don't get labeled an "enemy of social democracy". I'm merely critical of some of the doctrine.
From what I've seen, your professor is much the same as any gender studies professor, and the students will probably turn out just as hard line. The 2/29 won't stay that low for long, even if you yourself don't fall into the same line of thinking as the rest. Even on Team Liquid, if you voice any opinion that isn't text book feminist about gay rights, trans people or gender, you'll hear about it pretty harshly. The idea that anyone that disagrees with your ideology is objectively wrong and evil is a problem that permeates both sides and draws everyone closer to the extremes, which is why another reason I say I'm closer to centrist than anything. I agree with KwarK on a lot of things for instance, but I only ever post in threads where we disagree, because I don't want to contribute to the echo chamber. I probably come off as a contentious dick because of it.
If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying. Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his. We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women’s most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O’Hara to bed, who is a hero to females – not to males – in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time – to women). It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.”
It was in a chapter that was directed at the fine line between consent and non-consent in certain scenarios, the typical romance scenarios where the woman says no but doesn't mean it and everything is passionate and blah blah, or when a couple goes home drunk and has sex, where they're both in a committed relationship and both too inebriated to consent. Is it always rape if they're drunk? Where's the line between passionate and non-consensual? I guess I can "get it" more than most though, my first ex was both open about her rape fetish and committed to waiting until marriage, which threw some weird mixed signals my way. We never did anything PiV because of it, though I'm pretty sure she was down but just didn't want to say it, purely because I didn't want to push her into something she didn't want to get my jimmies off. I can see where the problem most people have with it, but the people in the video saying that it's pro-rape rather than a discussion of rape is and isn't is extremely disingenuous, or would be had they actually known the context and still implied otherwise. I differentiate feminists into two categories internally, people who believe in equality but don't actually do the academics of gender studies, and people who do. The former I define as egalitarians, the latter as feminists, because it's hard to be part of a movement you don't know the history, tenets or ideology of.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a poll? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
I can't speak for anyone else but I don't blame you for shedding the label if you feel it associates you with fanatics. This is so long as you are ok with individuals occasionally keeping the label who don't feel like it associates them with these fanatics.
BTW are we still talking about the label or only the movement at this point regardless of the label.
On April 10 2014 01:19 puppykiller wrote: I can't speak for anyone else but I don't blame you for shedding the label if you feel it associates you with fanatics. This is so long as you are ok with individuals occasionally keeping the label who don't feel like it associates them with these fanatics.
BTW are we still talking about the label or only the movement at this point regardless of the label.
Well as a fellow man, I would ofc argue anything that benefits people of my kind.
I'd say any movement IS it's followers, but even removing fanatics I disagree on some things in the overall movement (the WHO's stance on custody as seen above, the focus on western media and ideals rather than the constant atrocities suffered by women in other countries and the general us versus them stance I see a lot). I support anyone fighting for equal rights and opportunities for all people, so regardless of whatever someone labels themselves as, if they truly want equality I'm with them. I'll just class them as egalitarians in my head.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
On April 10 2014 01:27 RockIronrod wrote: I'd say any movement IS it's followers, but even removing fanatics I disagree on some things in the overall movement (the WHO's stance on custody as seen above, the focus on western media and ideals rather than the constant atrocities suffered by women in other countries and the general us versus them stance I see a lot). I support anyone fighting for equal rights and opportunities for all people, so regardless of whatever someone labels themselves as, if they truly want equality I'm with them. I'll just class them as egalitarians in my head.
I disagree with that stance on custody, the only feminist commercials on tv are about the atrocities in 3rd world countries so I don't think its fair to say the focus of the overall movement is on western ideals, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by feminist movements to send girls to school in those countries. To me feminism is just being against oppression against women. I'm of course against oppression against anyone so i consider myself a feminist. It's not very intelligent to use your anecdotal evidence of "seeing us versus them a lot" to define the overall movement especially when there are people of both genders on both sides.
I lost a close friend to tumblr extremist SJW shit and have gotten abused for being "white and straight" despite being neither by a small (less than a dozen) group protesters outside some shop in the city once, but overall not much if we're just counting face to face confrontations. At school I took an elective about societies and cultures where the first lesson I learnt was to be open minded about different societies and cultures. The second lesson I learnt was to never challenge the ideas I was taught. The glass ceiling was because of the patriarchy, gender roles are social constructs that must be broken down, love and respect Dr. Money for he is your new god, male problems are secondary to female problems. That's what got me on the track to disagreeing with the overall movement, the idea that I wasn't allowed to. It's where I got to see the difference between someone who says they're a feminist and someone who actually majors in it's studies. The latter is rarely ever a moderate.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
I disagree with that stance on custody, the only feminist commercials on tv are about the atrocities in 3rd world countries so I don't think its fair to say the focus of the overall movement is on western ideals, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by feminist movements to send girls to school in those countries. To me feminism is just being against oppression against women. I'm of course against oppression against anyone so i consider myself a feminist. It's not very intelligent to use your anecdotal evidence of "seeing us versus them a lot" to define the overall movement especially when there are people of both genders on both sides.
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not/anti-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to. Actually are there any examples of people in this thread supporting feminism and not acknowledging that there are extremists with misplaced values?
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite. at best a hypocrite, at worst a tacit supporter.
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite.
You want everyone who is against oppression towards women to commit practical doings against radical feminists or else they are hypocrites? Well that's not what being a hypocrite means. I don't use anything but my voice and presence at rallies to oppose oppression against women in general, it would be hypocritical to oppress women day to day and still do that, but a lack of speaking out against other wrongs is not hypocritical by any definition of the word. I use the same strategy to oppose oppression against women as I use to oppose oppression against men. To continue the metaphor you are basically calling every Muslim that doesn't arrest terrorists a hypocrite. Given the opportunity I speak out against feminists with ideals oppressive towards men, but that is not a requirement of not being hypocritical if you want to stop oppression against women.
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite. at best a hypocrite, at worst a tacit supporter.
Basically if you're not batman then how can you really criticise crime?
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote: [quote] If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman)
Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men. A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote: [quote] Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman)
Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men. A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
Just to remind you we are not talking about all female casts, just two females that have 1 line of dialog toward one another, super low bar. and I do blame Hollywood considering 82 percent of all executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors hired for the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2012 were men. Only 9 percent of directors are female. You may say there are no good female directors but such staggering numbers at least warrant entertaining the idea that men are preferred. It's been proven in other fields with blind auditions so there is at least precedent for such behavior. Hollywood is quite literally a bunch of men making movies about men for men.
We should also probably stop making generalizations about genders based on ancient war times :/
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
It's an example thing. Transformers 2 passes it, but saying that still misses the point
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
It's an example thing. Transformers 2 passes it, but saying that still misses the point
And here I thought the test was missing the point, when a movie literally all about a female lead fails not because of sexism, but because it has a very small cast.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does.
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
The Bechdel test is not literally intended to be a test, it was a single joke in a single panel of a comic that was never intended to be more than a witty observation into gender roles in Hollywood and strictly applying it to random movies in an attempt to prove or disprove anything is absurd.
On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote: [quote] If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men.
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote: [quote] Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?)
I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like.
Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great.
I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman)
Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men. A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
Our genes are based upon years upon years of history. The more intricate one species act in a certain way, the more the genes alters to it.
Historically speaking, the gender role have been that the male are mostly (when I say mostly, I mean more than 90% of the time) one to take heavy risks such hunting for food in the wild, experimenting w/ scientific mixtures, exploring into uncharted territories through sea or through space. Women are most likely to take the safe alternatives in farming and utilizing her charms in order to manipulate men to do her deeds (see Helen of Troy and Diao Chan from Romance of Three Kingdom).
Because of 95% (more or less) of our history is based upon the listed above gender roles, women and men excels at different tasks. Women are better at at psychological warfare because they can't take men heads on in a full frontal battle. They are expert at deception and conversational flow. They also have this almost "sacred" portion of their body that is their reproductive organs (this is scarcity at play as number of sperms far exceed the number of eggs in women) which is why they mostly protected as they are the one the productive ability of a species is proportional to the number of females in the society.
But there are always this symbiotic relationship b/w men and women. Men rewarded women's beauty and femininity by working harder for their wives (jewelries, houses, cars, makeups, etc.). It has ALWAYS been a fair exchange b/w the sexes at the most essential level. And btw women objectifies men just as much we objectify them. But our objection are mostly based on visual while they objectify us on what we can accomplish and our wealth.
Here is where feminism comes into the play that they want "equal rights" b/w the sexes. Well for starter, everything is about a transaction of something. We trade our wealth for beautiful ladies (well the richer you are, the more likely you'll have a beautiful spouse). So when women want to be LESS objectified for their looks, there have to have another balance to equalize it and that is to decrease their looks (you see this in countless examples where if a women put her careers before everything are less likely to take her of her looks due to not wanting to be objectified). A women's most beautiful stage is b/w age 18 to 30. And now there are many career-oriented feminist out there who are complaining and shaming men for being attracted to younger and more feminine girls. That's like saying that men should fight millions years of evolutionary genes and all you ancestor's experience.
On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something.
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote: [quote] Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men?
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more.
you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Why does Wikipedia write as if it was about something much more subtle?
The test, which has been described as "the standard by which feminist critics judge television, movies, books, and other media", moved into mainstream criticism in the 2010s.[13] By 2013, an Internet newspaper described it as "almost a household phrase, common shorthand to capture whether a film is woman-friendly",[14] and the failure of major Hollywood productions such as Pacific Rim (2013) to pass it was addressed in depth in the media.[15] According to Neda Ulaby, the test still resonates because "it articulates something often missing in popular culture: not the number of women we see on screen, but the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns."[10]
On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote: [quote] you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all.
You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies. EDIT: being "represented" or w.e. isn't just being on screen and talking. I'd say the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns is a good way to put it too.
On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb.
What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race?
I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals?
This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies.
How? Why?
EDIT: being "represented" or w.e. isn't just being on screen and talking.
What more is there to it, that the Bechdel test is supposed to gauge?
On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote: [quote] What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? [quote] This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies.
How? Why?
well we see that many more men talk to people of their gender about things that aren't women, than the opposite in movies for an obvious one. This means they are talking about problems that are not romantic etc.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies.
How? Why?
well we see that many more men talk to people of their gender about things that aren't women, than the opposite in movies for an obvious one. This means they are talking about problems that are not romantic etc.
EDIT: being "represented" or w.e. isn't just being on screen and talking.
What more is there to it, that the Bechdel test is supposed to gauge?
I thought your quote was perfect thats why i edited it in late when i saw it "the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns"
Is Gravity failing and Transformers passing the test then examples of false positives and negatives, or would you say Transformers better represents females and deal with their full range of concerns?
On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote: [quote] once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies.
How? Why?
well we see that many more men talk to people of their gender about things that aren't women, than the opposite in movies for an obvious one. This means they are talking about problems that are not romantic etc.
EDIT: being "represented" or w.e. isn't just being on screen and talking.
What more is there to it, that the Bechdel test is supposed to gauge?
I thought your quote was perfect thats why i edited it in late when i saw it "the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns"
Is Gravity failing and Transformers passing the test then examples of false positives and negatives, or would you say Transformers better represents females and deal with their full range of concerns?
Oh okay. Yeah like i said
This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it
if the Bechdel test is used as a pass/fail for representing women then it is heavily flawed for sure, i know some people might use it that way even though it wasn't really meant to be used at all. In the context of the original point it stands useful when applied to all movies as a means to quantify representation of women because the odds of "false positives" or negatives is not higher then relevant results so its not a paradox. At the very least it shows the amount of movies that don't have two named women, how rarely women talk to each other in movies and how often when they do talk its about men. Comparing this to the opposite shows a significant margin and serves to cancel out the "false positives" which is an interesting point.
Regardless it shouldn't be necessary to use a test to observe the problems with the way women are on average represented in Hollywood these days.
It also depends whether you feel Hollywood is a former of culture, or merely reflective of it. Either way, or anywhere in between those, it's doing pretty well as a sector in terms of gross figures etc.
People on the whole seem pretty happy with genderisation from my experiences and are somewhat mystified that I care. My hypothesis is that it'll be incredibly different to change that mindset as it's a phenomenon that is a lot less tangible than others in which society evolved over time and extended rights to previously excluded groups.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
The Bechdel test is only useful in aggregate. The point is that far more movies fail it than the reverse equivalent. It's just a very objective way of pointing out that our media culture is overwhelmingly dominated by men and male concerns. Going with it on a case by case basis is as silly as saying that all movies with black bad guys are racist, because a society where black people were villainous the majority of times they were portrayed WOULD be racist.
The Bechdel test tests society, not individual movies.
On April 10 2014 11:06 Yoav wrote: The Bechdel test is only useful in aggregate. The point is that far more movies fail it than the reverse equivalent. It's just a very objective way of pointing out that our media culture is overwhelmingly dominated by men and male concerns. Going with it on a case by case basis is as silly as saying that all movies with black bad guys are racist, because a society where black people were villainous the majority of times they were portrayed WOULD be racist.
The Bechdel test tests society, not individual movies.
Not sure what the test says about society though, from what I can gather somewhere between 50% and 60% of movies pass all 3 criteria of the test. Considering that some movies are in a historical settings (where women are not nearly as interesting due to their lack of ability to do antyhing interesting), many movies involve warfare in which women are naturally underrepresented due to physiology, and there is nothing particularly wrong for individual movies to fail the test, is it really that much of a concern?
That is not to say that I think media doesn't say a lot about our perceptions of gender. I think the criterium is too simple to fully express the extent to which media stereotype both men and women. Passing the test says very little about whether women get shit done in a movie, they are usually passive characters who serve primarily to develop a male character. (mainstream) Movies where a woman is a true protagonist or even antagonist in a theme that is not typically "girly" are quite rare. And when it is true, the fact that she is a woman is often somehow part of the character's struggle. Atleast that is my subjective feeling.
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Adding those stipulations better highlights the differences between male roles and female roles in movies.
How? Why?
well we see that many more men talk to people of their gender about things that aren't women, than the opposite in movies for an obvious one. This means they are talking about problems that are not romantic etc.
EDIT: being "represented" or w.e. isn't just being on screen and talking.
What more is there to it, that the Bechdel test is supposed to gauge?
I thought your quote was perfect thats why i edited it in late when i saw it "the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns"
Is Gravity failing and Transformers passing the test then examples of false positives and negatives, or would you say Transformers better represents females and deal with their full range of concerns?
This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it
if the Bechdel test is used as a pass/fail for representing women then it is heavily flawed for sure, i know some people might use it that way even though it wasn't really meant to be used at all. In the context of the original point it stands useful when applied to all movies as a means to quantify representation of women because the odds of "false positives" or negatives is not higher then relevant results so its not a paradox. At the very least it shows the amount of movies that don't have two named women, how rarely women talk to each other in movies and how often when they do talk its about men. Comparing this to the opposite shows a significant margin and serves to cancel out the "false positives" which is an interesting point.
Regardless it shouldn't be necessary to use a test to observe the problems with the way women are on average represented in Hollywood these days.
On April 10 2014 11:06 Yoav wrote: The Bechdel test is only useful in aggregate. The point is that far more movies fail it than the reverse equivalent. It's just a very objective way of pointing out that our media culture is overwhelmingly dominated by men and male concerns. Going with it on a case by case basis is as silly as saying that all movies with black bad guys are racist, because a society where black people were villainous the majority of times they were portrayed WOULD be racist.
The Bechdel test tests society, not individual movies.
How can you know that the Bechdel test is any more meaningful applied to the movie industry as a whole? Do you just take it on faith, because the criteria look sort of reasonable and it gives the results you want? Isn't is suspicious when the only standard there is for evaluating any test - that is, look at whether it classifies cases correctly - is brushed aside, because it doesn't work like that, it only applies in aggregate?
It's not just individual examples. Movies from 2008-2010 IMDB top 250, classified by bechdeltest.com : Pass: How to Train Your Dragon Inception Toy Story 3 Inglourious Basterds Star Trek The Dark Knight
Fail: Kick-Ass The Social Network Avatar District 9 The Secret in their Eyes Up In Bruges Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In) Gran Torino Slumdog Millionaire WALL-E The Wrestler
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around?
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around?
The fact that throughout the history of education women have been both passively and actively discouraged from studying or being good at math and still are today?
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around?
The fact that throughout the history of education women have been both passively and actively discouraged from studying or being good at math and still are today?
Isn't it interesting how, according to the article cited previously, 96% of the observed difference in results between men and women in chess was explained by lack of female participation, and then, when it comes to SAT Math, where women do participate and outnumber the men, we need a completely different explanation?
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
The fact that many people still jump on biology to explain all the observable differences between people of different sexes or racial/ethnic is quite disturbing.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You must be one of those "single factor"-type persons we're taught about the second we step in a university... "Don't be that guy", they say. Social sciences are a complex field and many people will try to bastardize it. Sources? A whiny blog and a shoddy free market think tank.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote: [quote] 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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You must be one of those "single factor"-type persons we're taught about the second we step in a university... "Don't be that guy", they say. Social sciences are a complex field and many people will try to bastardize it.
On April 05 2014 08:49 kwizach wrote: [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.
[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.
[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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You must be one of those "single factor"-type persons we're taught about the second we step in a university... "Don't be that guy", they say. Social sciences are a complex field and many people will try to bastardize it.
More like direct factor correlation.
Given that women's place in academia and the scientific world was rising in many countries including the US before the Obama administration, I can safely say that there are multiple factors at play. For this reason, when you say "That [single quota] is why girls are catching up", I have to denounce you for being the unscrupulous fellow that you are. Alternatively you lack intellectual rigor and operate solely to confirm your beliefs with the briefest of targeted google searches.
On April 09 2014 23:58 Darkwhite wrote: [quote] Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You must be one of those "single factor"-type persons we're taught about the second we step in a university... "Don't be that guy", they say. Social sciences are a complex field and many people will try to bastardize it.
More like direct factor correlation.
Given that women's place in academia and the scientific world was rising in many countries including the US before the Obama administration, I can safely say that there are multiple factors at play. For this reason, when you say "That [single quota] is why girls are catching up", I have to denounce you for being the unscrupulous fellow that you are. Alternatively you lack intellectual rigor and operate solely to confirm your beliefs with the briefest of targeted google searches.
The problem w/ your assumption is that you don't assume that no other factors exists because the post diddn't specify them. Well the fact that those factors are pretty much common sense to an intellectual fellow as to why women's rise in the Western world happened if people were least aware of your social-economical environmental change (and also by the fact that many posters here have gave their proofs). Context here. Therefore the most efficient way to prove the bias is giving the most correlative fact. That being said, if I were you I wouldn't exactly waste my time on the internet digging deeper fact and put way too much emotional investment.
Arguing about fact finding convenience? Come on now, that one was way too easy.
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You must be one of those "single factor"-type persons we're taught about the second we step in a university... "Don't be that guy", they say. Social sciences are a complex field and many people will try to bastardize it.
More like direct factor correlation.
Given that women's place in academia and the scientific world was rising in many countries including the US before the Obama administration, I can safely say that there are multiple factors at play. For this reason, when you say "That [single quota] is why girls are catching up", I have to denounce you for being the unscrupulous fellow that you are. Alternatively you lack intellectual rigor and operate solely to confirm your beliefs with the briefest of targeted google searches.
The problem w/ your assumption is that you don't assume that no other factors exists because the post diddn't specify them.
That's clearly a problem with how you brought it up, don't blame the reader for not giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know you or what agenda you may have. What I know is that you're writing on a forum where many people can be influenced, so if you don't even bother to nuance your posts, I feel like I have to do it for you.
Well the fact that those factors are pretty much common sense to an intellectual fellow as to why women's rise in the Western world happened if people were least aware of your social-economical environmental change (and also by the fact that many posters here have gave their proofs)
Forgive me, English is my second language but I don't usually have to re-read things. I had to read this a good 6-7 times, and I'm still not sure what you mean. What about my social-economical environmental change? Do you mean socioeconomic AND environmental change? Why mine, what about me?
If you simply mean that the regulation that you've brought up is a factor, I don't contest that. I'm not sure, because you haven't really given any good source and I haven't looked into it, but I don't contest it. I just think that you've brought it up in a way that's not very reasonable.
Context here. Therefore the most efficient way to prove the bias is giving the most correlative fact. That being said, if I were you I wouldn't exactly waste my time on the internet digging deeper fact and put way too much emotional investment.
Arguing about fact finding convenience? Come on now, that one was way too easy.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite.
You want everyone who is against oppression towards women to commit practical doings against radical feminists or else they are hypocrites? Well that's not what being a hypocrite means. I don't use anything but my voice and presence at rallies to oppose oppression against women in general, it would be hypocritical to oppress women day to day and still do that, but a lack of speaking out against other wrongs is not hypocritical by any definition of the word. I use the same strategy to oppose oppression against women as I use to oppose oppression against men. To continue the metaphor you are basically calling every Muslim that doesn't arrest terrorists a hypocrite. Given the opportunity I speak out against feminists with ideals oppressive towards men, but that is not a requirement of not being hypocritical if you want to stop oppression against women.
no dude, you don't get to semantics your way out of this. what you preach/expect of non-feminists is not what you allow/expect of feminists. that's why you're a hypocrite. i bolded that part because it never happens but if it were to happen, know that is only in your head.
and nope, you don't have to be batman, but when you close your eyes to the stupid shit feminists pull sometimes, then turn around and lecture someone else for the same shit ... how do you call that?
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists.
but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed.
Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite.
You want everyone who is against oppression towards women to commit practical doings against radical feminists or else they are hypocrites? Well that's not what being a hypocrite means. I don't use anything but my voice and presence at rallies to oppose oppression against women in general, it would be hypocritical to oppress women day to day and still do that, but a lack of speaking out against other wrongs is not hypocritical by any definition of the word. I use the same strategy to oppose oppression against women as I use to oppose oppression against men. To continue the metaphor you are basically calling every Muslim that doesn't arrest terrorists a hypocrite. Given the opportunity I speak out against feminists with ideals oppressive towards men, but that is not a requirement of not being hypocritical if you want to stop oppression against women.
no dude, you don't get to semantics your way out of this. what you preach/expect of non-feminists is not what you allow/expect of feminists. that's why you're a hypocrite.
i expect the same from everyone
i bolded that part because it never happens but if it were to happen, know that is only in your head.
well so far in this thread i said "I disagree with that stance on custody" referring to women having an advantage and " I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion" referring to a feminist that said the white interviewer shouldn't have an opinion. that's not in my head.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
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:
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:
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote: [quote] 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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 05 2014 07:26 Jumperer wrote: [quote] 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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
On April 05 2014 08:49 kwizach wrote: [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.
[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.
[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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 11 2014 08:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:
On April 09 2014 23:58 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 05 2014 08:49 kwizach wrote: [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.
[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.
[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:
Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You already posted the same two links earlier in the thread, and I already replied.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
Again, the findings of the scientific authors of the study is that the women chess players perform just as well as the men chess players statistically. You on the other hand, were trying to argue that women in general have less abilities than men based on chess results. Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
On April 13 2014 00:08 Darkwhite wrote: A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
No. That is not at all what the article did. Seriously, did you even read it? The comparison is not made by "imagining" how non-chess playing women would fare. That has strictly nothing to do with the content and results of the study.
What the authors do is compare the performances of actual playing men and women using only the data available for playing men and women - no projection based on assumptions for non-players is made. They compared the real performance of players from both sexes to the expected performance of those players, not to the expected performance of non-players or by using the expected performance of non-players. What you are misleadingly suggesting is simply not in the study. Either you did not read it, or you did read it and misunderstood it, or you did read it and decided to misrepresent it.
To go back to the wider point that you are again trying to make, however, I'll refer you to my previous post: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 12 2014 15:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Kwizach, you are a god among men. I wish I had your patience for holding peoples hands through arguments already made once.
On April 13 2014 04:32 Jumperer wrote: I cant consider them equal until a girl manage to become a world champion at poker/chess/dart/starcraft/LoL. If tiger woods can do it in golf then a girl shouldn't have trouble breaking into one of the 424878 non physically demanding sport and be a world champion.
No more excuses.
In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless? Poker, chess, darts, starcraft and LoL are pointless games, they should never be benchmarks for the value of a human being. Especially since they're all male-dominated activities in a world that has only recently started opening up and has only recently started letting women do things that historically only men have been allowed to do.
But also, how is golf not physically demanding? Men can typically drive much farther because we have significantly more upper body strength. Obviously strength is not the only thing that's needed, but it's clearly a huge factor. Women can't really compete there. It's funny that you'd mention golf too, given that it's one of those sports which very famously had institutionalized discrimination against women until fairly recently.
As I was reading your post, I assumed you'd be from some shithole country where backward ideologies still strive. Imagine my surprised when I saw that you're from the US.
On April 13 2014 04:32 Jumperer wrote: I cant consider them equal until a girl manage to become a world champion at poker/chess/dart/starcraft/LoL. If tiger woods can do it in golf then a girl shouldn't have trouble breaking into one of the 424878 non physically demanding sport and be a world champion.
No more excuses.
Out of curiosity, did anyone from TL call into your radio show to ask you about your beliefs? I saw your blog post a bit too late I think.
Look I think you're thinking about these things the wrong way. Kwizach already posted studies that show they perform at the same level, there are just less women playing. What you're asking for is almost the same as favoring anecdotal evidence over a wide-ranging study; isn't that kind of backwards?
edit: Oh well I found one victory for you! I think its the only female to win a major poker tournament.
On April 09 2014 23:58 Darkwhite wrote: [quote] Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 11 2014 08:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:
On April 09 2014 23:58 Darkwhite wrote: [quote] Here is a list of the current top 47 chess players. Note that all of the following 23 countries are all represented: Norway, Armenia, India, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, the United States, Azerbaijan, Cuba, France, Israel, Ukraine, England, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, the Philippines, Poland, Vietnam, Georgia, Czech Republic, Germany and Latvia.
Somehow, all of these countries are represented, despite the vast differences in culture, prosperity and interest in chess between them. Somehow, cultural effects are powerless to prevent this astonishing diversity. Yet, somehow, the best women currently occupy ranks 58 and 176. One might think the cultural barriers to becoming a world class chess player would be more formidable for some kid from the Phillipines than a woman right in the midst of the chess paradise that is Eastern Europe.
I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You already posted the same two links earlier in the thread, and I already replied.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
Again, the findings of the scientific authors of the study is that the women chess players perform just as well as the men chess players statistically. You on the other hand, were trying to argue that women in general have less abilities than men based on chess results. Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
On April 13 2014 00:08 Darkwhite wrote: A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
No. That is not at all what the article did. Seriously, did you even read it? The comparison is not made by "imagining" how non-chess playing women would fare. That has strictly nothing to do with the content and results of the study.
What the authors do is compare the performances of actual playing men and women using only the data available for playing men and women - no projection based on assumptions for non-players is made. They compared the real performance of players from both sexes to the expected performance of those players, not to the expected performance of non-players or by using the expected performance of non-players. What you are misleadingly suggesting is simply not in the study. Either you did not read it, or you did read it and misunderstood it, or you did read it and decided to misrepresent it.
To go back to the wider point that you are again trying to make, however, I'll refer you to my previous post: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 12 2014 15:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Kwizach, you are a god among men. I wish I had your patience for holding peoples hands through arguments already made once.
ahah, cheers :-)
Directly quoted from the article:
Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain.
The only way to control for participation rates, is to estimate what would have changed if populations were equally large.
Again quoting:
The next 70 pairs show a small but consistent advantage for men—their superiority over the corresponding female player is a little greater than would be expected purely from the relative numbers of male and female players.
How do they estimate this expected superiority purely from relative numbers? Naive statistics, of course. We draw additional female players from the same distribution as observed in the real female players, assuming that these are representative for the additional female players who would have played, if participation rates were equal. Then we calculate the difference between the hypothetical and the factual. Mathematically, that's what it all comes down to.
Now, there are two possible extremes: - exactly all the most talented female chess players are already playing because of targeted and self-selection - there is exactly as much untapped talent among the females who don't play, because that's the easiest way to do statistics All the mathematics in the article implicitly assumes the second extreme, whether you're able to notice or not.
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 11 2014 08:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You already posted the same two links earlier in the thread, and I already replied.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
Again, the findings of the scientific authors of the study is that the women chess players perform just as well as the men chess players statistically. You on the other hand, were trying to argue that women in general have less abilities than men based on chess results. Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
On April 13 2014 00:08 Darkwhite wrote: A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
No. That is not at all what the article did. Seriously, did you even read it? The comparison is not made by "imagining" how non-chess playing women would fare. That has strictly nothing to do with the content and results of the study.
What the authors do is compare the performances of actual playing men and women using only the data available for playing men and women - no projection based on assumptions for non-players is made. They compared the real performance of players from both sexes to the expected performance of those players, not to the expected performance of non-players or by using the expected performance of non-players. What you are misleadingly suggesting is simply not in the study. Either you did not read it, or you did read it and misunderstood it, or you did read it and decided to misrepresent it.
To go back to the wider point that you are again trying to make, however, I'll refer you to my previous post: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 12 2014 15:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Kwizach, you are a god among men. I wish I had your patience for holding peoples hands through arguments already made once.
Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain.
The only way to control for participation rates, is to estimate what would have changed if populations were equally large.
The next 70 pairs show a small but consistent advantage for men—their superiority over the corresponding female player is a little greater than would be expected purely from the relative numbers of male and female players.
How do they estimate this expected superiority purely from relative numbers? Naive statistics, of course. We draw additional female players from the same distribution as observed in the real female players, assuming that these are representative for the additional female players who would have played, if participation rates were equal. Then we calculate the difference between the hypothetical and the factual. Mathematically, that's what it all comes down to.
Now, there are two possible extremes: - exactly all the most talented female chess players are already playing because of targeted and self-selection - there is exactly as much untapped talent among the females who don't play, because that's the easiest way to do statistics All the mathematics in the article implicitly assumes the second extreme, whether you're able to notice or not.
Let's see how kwizach will weasel his way out of this one.
I don't see how they determine that "Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain". It seems to me like they outright assume that you either play or you don't and nothing else needs to be factored in.
I guess that's why it's unsubstantiated in the paper. They have no basis for saying that.
On April 13 2014 06:26 Djzapz wrote: I don't see how they determine that "Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain". It seems to me like they outright assume that you either play or you don't and nothing else needs to be factored in.
I guess that's why it's unsubstantiated in the paper. They have no basis for saying that.
It is quoted from the conclusion. They do at least try to substantiate it in the rest of the article.
I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
On April 13 2014 06:26 Djzapz wrote: I don't see how they determine that "Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain". It seems to me like they outright assume that you either play or you don't and nothing else needs to be factored in.
I guess that's why it's unsubstantiated in the paper. They have no basis for saying that.
It is quoted from the conclusion. They do at least try to substantiate it in the rest of the article.
Well the paper is weird and as far as I can tell I've never seen anything like this. They look at a cloud of data points from men, then say that since the number of females who participate is smaller, we expect less extreme values which is fair, and then they say that since the cloud of data points is 96% accurate with what we'd expect if the "females" cloud was enlraged, the last 4% can be attributed to other factors?
The methodology seems curious to me, because it completely disregards why the 96% which are inside the projected "cloud" each have their own specifics which presumably require no explanations. These models can be interesting but frankly they're one tool out of many. By itself, statistical models in social sciences don't say much about anything. This is some ground works for further interpretations.
The bottomline seems correct regardless: There are more men in those activities, and therefore there are more extreme data points for men because more data points = higher odds for extreme data points. That 96% is very naive though.
I think I might be confused as to what people are trying to say about it in this thread. The paper is both interesting and worthless on its own and it's foolish to draw conclusions from it. The damn thing ends on an interesting hypothesis to consider.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
On April 13 2014 08:07 KwarK wrote: Because intelligence is a very poorly defined thing and how good someone is at passing a given test has only a loose correlation with intelligence.
So, they can't be used at all then? None of those problems seem specific to testing across populations or countries.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
How come?
I am not an expert, but from my understanding the way questions are asked and the kinds of problems that are presented make alot of difference across cultures. Societies differ in the extent, frequency and form the different kinds of mental problems are encountered in life. Which is why developing a culture fair test (one that finds no mean difference in IQ) is quite difficult.
On April 13 2014 08:07 KwarK wrote: Because intelligence is a very poorly defined thing and how good someone is at passing a given test has only a loose correlation with intelligence.
So, they can't be used at all then? None of those problems seem specific to testing across populations or countries.
If you test people with the same social/educational background then it's easier to compensate for shit and make questions that test them relatively fairly. But even then they're still not great indicators.
The more different the people being tested the more difficult it is to come up with questions that try them evenly. Consider something like spatial reasoning, we grew up in a society with Tetris, is it fair to assume that someone that did not would be as good at it?
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
How come?
I am not an expert, but from my understanding the way questions are asked and the kinds of problems that are presented make alot of difference across cultures. Societies differ in the extent, frequency and form the different kinds of mental problems are encountered in life. Which is why developing a culture fair test (one that finds no mean difference in IQ) is quite difficult.
If you know what the result is supposed to be, you probably don't need a test.
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 11 2014 08:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 10 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] I invite you to read Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two. For the remaining 4%, you can turn to the cultural factors I mentioned, notably the stereotype threat effect that I discussed with Jumperer.
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You already posted the same two links earlier in the thread, and I already replied.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
Again, the findings of the scientific authors of the study is that the women chess players perform just as well as the men chess players statistically. You on the other hand, were trying to argue that women in general have less abilities than men based on chess results. Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
On April 13 2014 00:08 Darkwhite wrote: A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
No. That is not at all what the article did. Seriously, did you even read it? The comparison is not made by "imagining" how non-chess playing women would fare. That has strictly nothing to do with the content and results of the study.
What the authors do is compare the performances of actual playing men and women using only the data available for playing men and women - no projection based on assumptions for non-players is made. They compared the real performance of players from both sexes to the expected performance of those players, not to the expected performance of non-players or by using the expected performance of non-players. What you are misleadingly suggesting is simply not in the study. Either you did not read it, or you did read it and misunderstood it, or you did read it and decided to misrepresent it.
To go back to the wider point that you are again trying to make, however, I'll refer you to my previous post: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 12 2014 15:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Kwizach, you are a god among men. I wish I had your patience for holding peoples hands through arguments already made once.
Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain.
The only way to control for participation rates, is to estimate what would have changed if populations were equally large.
The next 70 pairs show a small but consistent advantage for men—their superiority over the corresponding female player is a little greater than would be expected purely from the relative numbers of male and female players.
How do they estimate this expected superiority purely from relative numbers? Naive statistics, of course. We draw additional female players from the same distribution as observed in the real female players, assuming that these are representative for the additional female players who would have played, if participation rates were equal. Then we calculate the difference between the hypothetical and the factual. Mathematically, that's what it all comes down to.
I'm impressed at the way you keep inserting in the article content that simply is not there. The article does not make a comparison between the actual male chess population on the one hand, and the actual female chess population + a projected female chess population based on the statistics of the actual female chess population on the other hand, in order to have matching numbers between the two. They do not, contrary to what you're saying, "draw additional female players from the same distribution as observed in the real female players".
What the article does is compare the actual and expected performances of the top 100 male and female players - they do not invent additional female players, they look at the best 100 from both groups, and they calculate their expected performances by using the mean and variability of both actual populations. At no point in the analysis do they project the data onto imaginary additional female players. The methodology is thoroughly explained in appendix A, at the end of the paper:
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
That is how participation rates are controlled - not by the method you are suggesting. There is absolutely nothing "naïve" about the statistical method used here. You simply did not understand the mathematical operations at play.
On April 13 2014 06:16 Darkwhite wrote: Now, there are two possible extremes: - exactly all the most talented female chess players are already playing because of targeted and self-selection - there is exactly as much untapped talent among the females who don't play, because that's the easiest way to do statistics All the mathematics in the article implicitly assumes the second extreme, whether you're able to notice or not.
You did not understand the "mathematics" of the article - again, the article does not make any assumption on a female population not already described by the data used.
In addition, since you conveniently keep avoiding my rebuttal of your point on the non-playing female population, allow me to re-iterate: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority. If you wish to claim otherwise for the non-playing female and male populations, where is your evidence?
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
It does assume it, implicitly - the worst sort of assumption. If the women who do show up in their material are selected for aptitude, directly or indirectly, then the women who don't show up will on average be less talented. This would mean that, if you could encourage additional women to play chess, you would mostly get poorer players, increasing the male-female gap on average and failing to eliminate it in absolute numbers. That's the problem with the population normalization magic the authors are doing with no effort to justify it, and no wall of text will change that.
As a trivial illustration, we can play the same game with sprinting; less than one percent of the world's population have a recorded 100m performance this year. Thus, there should at least be a hundred people in the world faster than Usain Bolt. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm not sure if you thought that describing my reply as a "wall of text" would somehow prevent anyone from noticing that you failed to reply to the arguments I just presented you with, but just in case, it didn't.
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier. Your initial argument that the fact that there are more men at the top means men have better abilities has therefore been entirely debunked - women perform just as well as men statistically. I can't stress this enough - there is nothing about chess rankings that supports the idea of greater abilities for male, as the study I showed you clearly demonstrates.
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
So, to come back to the argument you have now been repeating for a couple of posts, you've switched from looking at chess rankings to claiming that if we were to take into account the women who have never tried chess and made them into chess players, we would see a decline in the average performance of females, creating a male-female gap (I use the word "creating", because contrary to what you said, there is no current male-female gap, as was repeatedly explained to you and proven by the article I cited).
As I extensively explained in my previous post, however, you are basing yourself on absolutely nothing whatsoever to claim this. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
I asked you to explain why cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess, but not for players from Vietnam and the Phillipines. You have still given no such explanation - you immediately jumped to citing crude statistical analysis on small, unrepresentative samples, which you put your fullest trust in, while criticizing SATs as unrepresentative.
Again, you are using chess players to support a broader point about women's abilities. I'm not calling the chess players population representative. You are. And again, your premise that "cultural barriers are insurmountable for women in chess" is factually false: women perform exactly as well as men in chess, as the study I provided you with earlier shows. What exactly do you not understand about this?
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: And the variance is not at all small - the problem is that Hyde apparently does not understand variability, or does not want to understand it. Quoting her:
All [variance ratios], by state and grade, are > 1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.21...]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability, although the discrepancy in variances is not large.
1.11-1.21 is incredibly significant - not for the average person, but it guarantees that the higher echelons will be dominated by men. Netherlands, and you can see in the PISA-graph, does fall into the exact same pattern as all other countries. You are just picking the freak outliers - which are not stable over three years - and ignoring the general trend.
I'm not sure what data you're using, but as you can see in the article by Hyde and Myers, the M/F variance ratio for Denmark was 0.99, 1.00 for the Netherlands, and, for another example, 0.95 for Indonesia. You seem to be the one confused about the data - the claim of universal greater variability for males across countries is factually false.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest. If you look at the Asian students in isolation, the gender gap is every bit as visible, both in statistical material and real world selection processes such as the Mathematical Olympiad.
The sentence "Asian girls are well represented in the high percentiles because Asians in general outperform the rest" is completely nonsensical. The numbers for the 99th percentile for the Asian population studied in the article disprove the idea that there is universally a preponderance of men at the top. I've shown you this is simply not true across countries, and in this case it's not true across ethnicities either. Clearly, this points to the role of sociocultural factors on variability.
On April 11 2014 21:32 Darkwhite wrote: I brought up SATs in addition to chess because it shows how readily you change your explanations around. You postulate that the discrepancies in chess performances is a population effect, but when this obviously cannot be true for SAT, population effects are suddenly irrelevant, samples are unrepresentative, sociocultural blah. Note that a very simple variability theory accounts for all the explanandum at once.
I don't "postulate" anything about chess rankings, since there are no discrepancies in chess performance - women perform just as well as men statistically. The fact that you are still denying this very clearly illustrates how you are refusing to let evidence and scientific research get in the way of your preconceived bias about male superiority. With regards to S.A.T.s, the possibility of this particular aspect of sampling bias was put forward by Hyde because there is an actual reason (in terms of student grades) to believe that the best students tend to apply for college education. It was just a possibility, however, and we can entirely dismiss it if you want to - it won't change the fundamental sampling bias problems that still apply to the population.
On April 11 2014 08:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 11 2014 07:15 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: [quote]
This is the sort of nonsense you get when you assume that participation and skill are independent variables. If you apply the exact same methodology to basketball, you will similarly purport to show that tall players are overrepresented at the highest level, not because being tall is itself an advantage, but because there are more tall basketball players. What's really going on is that taller players perform better, increasing the chances that they keep playing, while coaches actively recruit and develop taller players - it's easier to make a tall player good, than a good player tall. Skill and participation are not at all independent.
Actually, that is what happens when someone doesn't bother to read the scientific article he was presented with. Your argument is addressed on p. 1163. In short, there is no evidence that supports men have any kind of biological advantages for chess. In addition, "drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar" (see Chabris, C. F. & Glickman, M. E. 2006 "Sex differences in intellectual performance: analysis of a large cohort of competitive chess players", Psychological Science 17, pp 1040–1046). This means that the selection process is not a matter of boys performing better and therefore continuing to play more than girls, unlike your basketball example. Women simply do not turn to chess initially as much as men (for sociocultural reasons), and the ones who do perform virtually exactly as well as should be statistically expected from their numbers, the extremely small difference being explained by cultural factors.
The statistics only account for people who have played chess in an organized environment. This is a fraction of the population, which is not selected at random nor only for sociocultural reason - primarily, they are selected for whether or not they find the game interesting and enjoyable.
The article hinges on the assumption that the women who do play chess have wound up there by some sort of accident or happenstance, and that there is just as much talent among the women who don't play. Do you really find that likely?
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population. The population of women who play chess virtually does not play statistically worse than the population of men. For the remaining very small 4% difference, I provided evidence of the role of cultural factors in the form of scientific research done in social sciences on that very topic. Thus, chess rankings & performance simply does not support the idea of greater abilities for males.
Since you cannot dispute these numbers, your objection is that there are fewer women because women are inherently worse at chess (due to lower relevant natural abilities). This runs into four problems.
1. You would expect this to still show among the population of women that does play chess, but it doesn't. The opposite is true. 2. The proportion of women starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.) is the same as the proportion of men starting to play chess then stopping (and therefore not being taken into account by Bilalić et al.), as shown in the study by Chabris and Glickman which I referred to in my previous message. This means that the difference in numbers in men and women competing is simply not explained by women being unsuccessful/worse than men and therefore dropping out without having a chance to appear in the sample, since they drop out at the same proportion as men. 3. The remaining explanation is that there are simply way less women trying/engaging in chess than men in the first place. Unless you are going to tell me the explanation is that women are more physically deterred by a game with black & white squares (which would still be irrelevant to intelligence), this means that sociocultural factors explain the difference. 4. Beyond these points, there is zero evidence of biological factors explaining any sort of difference in chess performance.
To sum up: looking at chess performance does not, in any way, support the hypothesis that men have abilities that women don't. Not a single aspect of the issue supports the hypothesis.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote:
On April 11 2014 03:04 kwizach wrote:
On April 11 2014 00:28 Darkwhite wrote: Here is a sample where females outnumber males, so that the participation bias should pull in the other direction. What's the non-biological explanation this time around? + Show Spoiler [img] +
1. As argued by many scholars who have studied the topic, it is problematic to use S.A.T. scores to evaluate gender performance in mathematics for several reasons, the most important of them being inadequate sampling. First, it is only a specific part of the general population which takes the test, preventing generalization. Second, there are more women who take the tests than men. As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group" (Supporting online material for the article I cite next, pp. 2-3). In fact, if you take a look at ACT scores, ACT being also a test taken by students going to college, there is no gender gap in scores in states where the test was administered to all students. See Janet S. Hyde et al., "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance", Science 320, 25 July 2008, pp 494 ff. and the supporting online material. 2. In the US and some other nations, there are actually no longer gender differences in mathematics performance in the general population. Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it. I direct you to Nicole M. Else-Quest et al., "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2010, pp. 103-127 and Janet S. Hyde, Janet E. Mertz, "Gender, culture, and mathematics performance", PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 22, 2009, pp. 8801-8807.
It's interesting how SATs get criticized for inadequate sampling while chess statistics are fair game. I'm sure people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the general population, preventing generalization.
You seem to be confused about who is arguing what with respect to the chess population. You brought it up (after Jumperer) to argue the point that men had superior abilities than women. I explained to you that your example did not support your point since the chess performances of the two populations are statistically equivalent. I'm not trying to argue that people with FIDE ratings are not a specific part of the population, you were making that generalization, and I showed you that even among the specific population you had chosen your point was not true.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: The excess women taking the SATs actually works in their favor; the graph I linked gives the straight ratio without any normalization. Despite a larger number of women being tested, there are still significantly more men with the best scores. Notice that this larger talent pool is the exact reason given, with regards to chess, for the lack of top female players. While it is true that the excess women could hurt the female average score, it certainly shouldn't hurt their absolute representation, at any level.
Yes, I was addressing average male and female scores. The problem I referred to with regards to the higher number of women, potentially including more less-capable candidates, still impacts the M/F ratios at the lower levels. Beyond this, however, the sampling problem remains entirely. Since the test is mainly taken by those who wish to attend college, and men are very much in the majority when it comes to studies in engineering/physics, for example, you could expect more men that have put an emphasis on maths to take the SATs than women. I'm not sure why you think SAT scores are at all representative of anything, let alone evidence of the role of biological factors.
With regards to the parallel you draw to chess, in chess women statistically performed just as well as men. In the case of SATs, they did not (with plenty of non-biological possible reasons, as I said). In addition, the possibility of a negative impact of higher numbers of women on their average scores (and on the M/F ratios at the bottom) raised by Hyde pertained to the attributes of the excess population for women. I'm not sure what comparison you're making with chess here.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: It is true that Hyde has sort-of pretended to show that there is no gender gap in maths. She has done this through sheer intellectual dishonesty, in particular: - including pre-pubescent students in the sample; the same sort of group where girls are taller than boys - using minimum-level tests such as the NCLB, which doesn't distinguish between average, above-average and exceptional performances, but primarily singles out ineptitude
The articles I cited used the tests which allow for the most accurate comparisons among the U.S. population and among other countries (TIMSS and PISA tests for cross-countries). They take into account different stages, and certainly do not present only averaged aggregates.
On April 11 2014 04:24 Darkwhite wrote: Even so, when Hyde has done everything in her power to rig the testing to diminish the gender gap, one problem remains - that, while averages of males and females approach each other, the variability of male scores remains significantly higher. What this means is that, when you look at only the most talented, such as the 95 percentile, you will find an overwhelming male dominance. Exactly like we see in the International Mathematical Olympiad, or in universities.
I would be interested to see exactly which countries do not have a significant gap between men and women at the higher levels; many are included here, in what seems a fairly robust trend. + Show Spoiler +
Arrows show that the outliers typically aren't stable from the 2003 to the 2006 PISA test.
This objection is pretty funny considering that if you had bothered to look at the three articles I cited, you would have noticed that it is completely false: the variability hypothesis is tested each time, and extensively so in Hyde & Mertz (2009). I even referred to those results when I wrote "Some gender differences do remain in the U.S. among the most mathematically talented, but the gap has been closing steadily and it does not exist in some other nations, meaning that sociocultural and not biological factors are behind it". Several measures are examined and explained at the 95th percentile and above, exactly what you argued they should have done. Like I said, a gap does remain in the U.S., but it is smaller than before, it varies across ethnicities (for Asians, it is girls who score better above the 99th percentile), and it is nonexistent in some other countries, pointing clearly towards the role of sociocultural factors. If you read the articles, you will see that Denmark and the Netherlands are examples of countries where males did not have greater variability than females.
Fun fact: men are being limited in the science field.
You already posted the same two links earlier in the thread, and I already replied.
On April 09 2014 20:13 puppykiller wrote: Some really good posts by kwizach in this thread.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
You are lying through your teeth at this point. If you still cannot see how the population argument, with regards women in chess, relies on the assumption that there is as much, untapped potential among the women who do not play chess as those who actually do, then we're done here.
Again, the findings of the scientific authors of the study is that the women chess players perform just as well as the men chess players statistically. You on the other hand, were trying to argue that women in general have less abilities than men based on chess results. Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
On April 13 2014 00:08 Darkwhite wrote: A very brief explanation of Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165 :
Look at FIDE ratings of registered players. From this, calculate the mean and variation of the male and female subsets of the population. If we now do a direct comparison between male and female players, we will see that males vastly outnumber females in the top ranks. We will also see that there are more male players than female. Then we ask; how would the rankings look, if the male and female subsets were equally large?
Essentially, what we have to do to make the comparison is to imagine what would happen with a larger female playerbase. So, what we do is invent new, hypothetical female players, by drawing them from a population with mean and variation derived from the current female player base. We can now choose three different assumptions: - New players will be more talented on average (this is absurd) - New players will be exactly the same on average (this assumes that the current female players are representative of the female population, i.e. that there is no selection for aptitude on who plays chess, i.e. that skill and participation are independent variables - this is what's done in the article) - New players will be less talented on average (this assumes that the women who choose to play chess today are, on average, the most talented women)
The conclusions in the article rests on the unfounded assumption that women who don't play chess are at least as talented as the women who do. There are very good reasons to think this assumption is false.
No. That is not at all what the article did. Seriously, did you even read it? The comparison is not made by "imagining" how non-chess playing women would fare. That has strictly nothing to do with the content and results of the study.
What the authors do is compare the performances of actual playing men and women using only the data available for playing men and women - no projection based on assumptions for non-players is made. They compared the real performance of players from both sexes to the expected performance of those players, not to the expected performance of non-players or by using the expected performance of non-players. What you are misleadingly suggesting is simply not in the study. Either you did not read it, or you did read it and misunderstood it, or you did read it and decided to misrepresent it.
To go back to the wider point that you are again trying to make, however, I'll refer you to my previous post: there is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. I refer you to my previous post with regards to why less women play chess (sociocultural and not biological factors), and invite you to stop asserting things that you cannot substantiate with anything and which are clearly the product of your personal beliefs of male superiority.
On April 12 2014 15:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Kwizach, you are a god among men. I wish I had your patience for holding peoples hands through arguments already made once.
ahah, cheers :-)
Directly quoted from the article:
Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain.
The only way to control for participation rates, is to estimate what would have changed if populations were equally large.
Again quoting:
The next 70 pairs show a small but consistent advantage for men—their superiority over the corresponding female player is a little greater than would be expected purely from the relative numbers of male and female players.
How do they estimate this expected superiority purely from relative numbers? Naive statistics, of course. We draw additional female players from the same distribution as observed in the real female players, assuming that these are representative for the additional female players who would have played, if participation rates were equal. Then we calculate the difference between the hypothetical and the factual. Mathematically, that's what it all comes down to.
Now, there are two possible extremes: - exactly all the most talented female chess players are already playing because of targeted and self-selection - there is exactly as much untapped talent among the females who don't play, because that's the easiest way to do statistics All the mathematics in the article implicitly assumes the second extreme, whether you're able to notice or not.
Let's see how kwizach will weasel his way out of this one.
By pointing out what is actually in the article. But yeah, don't let evidence get in the way of your sexism.
On April 13 2014 06:26 Djzapz wrote: I don't see how they determine that "Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain". It seems to me like they outright assume that you either play or you don't and nothing else needs to be factored in.
I guess that's why it's unsubstantiated in the paper. They have no basis for saying that.
That is not what they assume. Their statement refers to the populations they studied, and is perfectly correct. With regards to your following post, there is nothing naïve about the 96%. It's the mathematical result which describes the correspondence between male and female performances. It's entirely accurate.
On April 13 2014 04:32 Jumperer wrote: I cant consider them equal until a girl manage to become a world champion at poker/chess/dart/starcraft/LoL. If tiger woods can do it in golf then a girl shouldn't have trouble breaking into one of the 424878 non physically demanding sport and be a world champion.
No more excuses.
The fact that winners are more likely to come from the largest group engaging in the activities you listed is not an excuse, it's a simple statistical fact. As written in the Bilalić et al. article I cited:
Even if two groups have the same average (mean) and variability (s.d.), the highest performing individuals are more likely to come from the larger group. The greater the difference in size between the two groups, the greater is the difference to be expected between the top performers in the two groups. Nothing about underlying differences between the groups can be concluded from the preponderance of members of the larger group at the far ends of the distribution until one can show that this preponderance is greater than would be expected on statistical sampling grounds.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
How come?
I am not an expert, but from my understanding the way questions are asked and the kinds of problems that are presented make alot of difference across cultures. Societies differ in the extent, frequency and form the different kinds of mental problems are encountered in life. Which is why developing a culture fair test (one that finds no mean difference in IQ) is quite difficult.
If you know what the result is supposed to be, you probably don't need a test.
I don't think you know what an IQ test is. The result is going to be that the average IQ is 100 in the given population. It's not designed to be an objective measure.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
How come?
I am not an expert, but from my understanding the way questions are asked and the kinds of problems that are presented make alot of difference across cultures. Societies differ in the extent, frequency and form the different kinds of mental problems are encountered in life. Which is why developing a culture fair test (one that finds no mean difference in IQ) is quite difficult.
If you know what the result is supposed to be, you probably don't need a test.
Exactly, the purpose of an IQ test is not to test differences between populations. It is a proxy for intelligence used to measure the relative intelligence of individuals of similar backgrounds.
The weights of different kinds of mental tasks matter when it comes to IQ tests, and they are to some extent arbitrary. If you want to say something about differences in cognitive abilities between the genders, it makes a lot more sense to test the tasks seperately.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
On April 13 2014 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote: I remember reading a study of sorts which had male and female IQs (or some similar metric) as the same on average, but with more males in the lowest and highest bands. I have failed to find it and have read that it's somewhat discredited now, is anyone aware of the study and could link me?
IQ and its like aren't infallible metrics by any means, there are a multitude of flaws but I found that idea interesting. The conclusion they drew from that data was that it added additional (non genderisation) hypotheses for why males dominate certain populations, elite achievements + prison populations etc
Standard IQ tests are partly constructed in such a way so that there is no difference in mean score for men and women. As such, the finding that mean IQs are not different is fairly meaningless, IQ tests are not suited to test for intelligence differences in across populations. For exampe, they also can't be used to test for intelligence differences across countries/cultures. The only interesting conclusion from the finding of no mean difference is that we are able to construct tests that find no difference.
Studies do seem to find some degree of greater variance for males quite consistently. This does not in itself offer convincing evidence for nature in favor of nurture in my opinion, there could very well be gender differences in the degree to which the males and females are encouraged to conform, excell, experiment etc.
How come?
I am not an expert, but from my understanding the way questions are asked and the kinds of problems that are presented make alot of difference across cultures. Societies differ in the extent, frequency and form the different kinds of mental problems are encountered in life. Which is why developing a culture fair test (one that finds no mean difference in IQ) is quite difficult.
If you know what the result is supposed to be, you probably don't need a test.
I don't think you know what an IQ test is. The result is going to be that the average IQ is 100 in the given population. It's not designed to be an objective measure.
The average for the whole population is 100 by design. That doesn't mean that the average for every subset must be 100. For instance, Wikipedia:
The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
Also, here are the straight data from the entire FIDE database as of APR2014.
All included: M: u=1902, o=268, N=160305 W: u=1762, o=287, N=15848
Only 2000+: M: u=2159, o=120, N=62728 W: u=2116, o=100, N=3991
Only German: M: u=1984, o=200, N=16864 W: u=1844, o=217, N=953
I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Never said anything about women being useless, both sexes need each other in order to survive. Stop putting words into my mouth kid.
Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear?
The basis of my argument lies on the fact that it's all based on biology. I believe in traditional gender roles where men act like men and women act like women. Thats how civilization thrived for million of years. Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean that my view is backward. Everything that you learn in school isn't 100% correct.
You call your opinion that it's all based on biology a fact, which is by no means a given. Also civilization thrived for millions of years with all kinds of bullshit happening. The fact that it worked doesn't mean it was good. Recent studies show that women may very well be much better at things that we didn't allow them to do than we give them credit for.
Civilization thrived with monarchies, tyrannies, famines, the lack of hygiene of medicine, society thrived before we knew better.
I didn't say anything about golf. I mentioned Tiger because he broke the racial barrier in 1997 by winning the masters by 12 shots against all odds and then continue to dominate golf for a long time. I want a woman to do something similar instead of blaming society and making excuses. Young Tiger faced racism and all sort of shits when he was growing up, but that didn't stop him from being good.
You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Never said anything about women being useless, both sexes need each other in order to survive. Stop putting words into my mouth kid.
Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear?
The basis of my argument lies on the fact that it's all based on biology. I believe in traditional gender roles where men act like men and women act like women. Thats how civilization thrived for million of years. Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean that my view is backward. Everything that you learn in school isn't 100% correct.
You call your opinion that it's all based on biology a fact, which is by no means a given. Also civilization thrived for millions of years with all kinds of bullshit happening. The fact that it worked doesn't mean it was good. Recent studies show that women may very well be much better at things that we didn't allow them to do than we give them credit for.
Civilization thrived with monarchies, tyrannies, famines, the lack of hygiene of medicine, society thrived before we knew better.
I didn't say anything about golf. I mentioned Tiger because he broke the racial barrier in 1997 by winning the masters by 12 shots against all odds and then continue to dominate golf for a long time. I want a woman to do something similar instead of blaming society and making excuses. Young Tiger faced racism and all sort of shits when he was growing up, but that didn't stop him from being good.
Fair.
So by telling him to grow up because he called you a "kid", you went straight ahead and went to his level by returning a "child" insult. Kudos.
Women are better at one particular field while men are better at another. In STEM + athleticism, men clearly have advantages over women in terms of innovation and superhuman physical feats.
I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men. In the past of America (and present of other parts of the world) while women stayed at home taking care of the family, men were out there conducting extremely risky tasks. For example working in highly focus oriented workplace in construction and factory during the cold war. In terms of "oppression", men overall suffered just as much (if not more) than the ladies.
The worst thing about feminism isn't their original message but it is about the resentment and shaming of feminist saying that "Oh he just can't handle a strong and independent woman" after she reached into a high position career-wise but simultaneously lost her youth and attractiveness when men prefer a younger and more beautiful girl. If you chose that career path, don't be bitching about it later. Suck it up by the fact of what men find alluring in a girl.
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: To me the answer lies in biology.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: To me the answer lies in biology.
There is zero evidence supporting this.
Go back to the basics. Men don't own women anything.
If you are to count about "equality in jobs/education", then they own us too regarding all the sacrifice of men, brothers, sons, and husbands, to provide that one haunch of meat or that protection against wolves in the pre-historical timeline.
Until they are able to make up for those loses, men don't have to move an inch away from the status quo.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women.
You can keep doing that if you want, but if I were you, I would stop, considering that you started calling me "kid" because you misunderstood something I said and immediately got offended because you can't understand plain English.
In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything?
Well for one, being "world champion" doesn't really matter because those are extreme values. For the most part, our species thrives on solid averages and not on Michael Phelps's ability to swim quickly or the best dive at the Olympics or who won OSL 2007. The world needs good engineers, scientists, biologists, and people who don't kill other people in car accidents. In all of those things, women are capable. Yet in certain things, they are underrepresented for a variety of reasons.
Biology may very well be one of them, it's inherently hard to tell and the fact that you'd pretend to know this for sure is not surprising. Regardless, of the factors that are at play, there are the social and cultural norms. Now, you brush those off as if they were irrelevant, which is absolutely ridiculous because you're essentially denying the importance of a person's context in their uprising. Our culture very much drives us and point us in a general direction, though. If we look at the social norms in different countries, we'll see that the people end up in very different places in academia. Some countries want more engineers, other want more doctors. Men and women go to fields which they believe to be more suitable for them. And people determine what's suitable for them by taking the input from the society they live in. In other words, certain activities or jobs have a stigma of sorts, for one of the sexes. Certainly, you can argue that the sexes may have a biological affinity toward said activity, but that's a shallow analysis. Just a few decades ago, men like you outright assumed men to be much smarter than women, before women even really had any access to education. When potential is allowed to be unlocked, you notice that context does matter.
You ask me if I "ever wondered why there isn't a super good top ranked blahblahblah". Well an interesting article was posted about this and you should perhaps look into it. Very few women play SC2, and incredibly few women play SC2 competitively. The same thing can be said about other games, and jobs, etc. The fact is that there are much fewer women, and so it's a lot less likely that women would happen to reach the top. Someone made the analogy earlier, say there are 85 players, 80 have brown hair and 5 have blonde hair, it's likely that the best player of all will be brown haired, statistically. I would then add that if you constantly tell the blond haired people that they can't do it and that they're dumb and incapable of beating the brown haired and this turns out to be true, then they'll have less drive to try to overcome the issues.
Long story short, context is important. We know it's important because it's what science has been getting at in the last decades. Granted, you and many other seem to feel free to ignore a reality which is inconvenient to beliefs that you've grown attached to for whatever reason. Truly dogmatic and a little bit sad.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote: To me the answer lies in biology.
There is zero evidence supporting this.
Go back to the basics. Men don't own women anything.
If you are to count about "equality in jobs/education", then they own us too regarding all the sacrifice of men, brothers, sons, and husbands, to provide that one haunch of meat or that protection against wolves in the pre-historical timeline.
Until they are able to make up for those loses, men don't have to move an inch away from the status quo.
He didn't say anything about owing anything as far as I can tell... He's just saying that the article suggests that the reason why women make up less of the extreme data points is because they constitute less data points in general and therefore it follows that they wouldn't have as many of the extreme ones.
Social justice is about choice, too, not settling imaginary debts from a fuzzy past that you haven't had anything to deal with. I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in any trenches either.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
The problem with a comparison to hair color is that we have much better reasons to assume hair color and chess talent are independent, than chess participation and chess talent.
You are sort of right on a technicality; the article does not scale up the size of the female population, by inventing additional players. They just do the opposite instead; they scale down the general (predominately male) population, assuming mean and variation remains unchanged. The difference is entirely superficial; solving for y in terms of x, rather than for x in terms of y, but maybe that clears something up.
Now, why is this scaling a problem? Let's quote someone you might listen to:
As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group"
Replace surplus females taking the SAT with surplus males playing chess. There is every reason to expect that, were there fewer males playing chess, the pruning wouldn't be random, but biased towards the less talented players.
Now, in the SATs, the ratio of females to males is roughly 1.2 (one point two). In the sample of German chess players, the factor is approximately 17 (seventeen). If there were supposed to be any noticeable effect on the mean values from uneven populations in the SATs, the effect would be orders of magnitude larger in the case of the German chess players. And that effect would pull, as Hyde argues, towards a larger male advantage in mean value, than the one which already exists.
You can't have your population normalization effect to pull whichever way you want from case to case.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
Whatever it is that you meant, not only does it apply to individual women because our notion of equality has nothing to do with our history but has to do with practical equality as it should be in practice, men have historically treated women like animals. To say that we don't owe them anything (and we don't) because we fought wars in their place is pointless. We fought wars for our women and against the women of others - every single time.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
Gonna hit the hay, but I question the morality of some of the people in this thread =_=.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear?
ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women. In real jobs, women can claim that society is holding her back. She didn't get her promotion because she's a "woman." In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything?
There was a belief that black baseball players are inferior to white baseball players. That was proven wrong when blacks were allowed into the MLB and everyone could see their ability. If women are truly equal to men in term of ability. They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
To me the answer lies in biology.
Just a few things you fedorable bigot. No hidden top girls in gaming, what about scarlet or hafu in wow? Tossgirl was a low tier pro in bw, which means she was better than 99.9^100 percent of everyone to ever play the game. And Jenny Finch struck out something like 23 major leaguers, but shes clearly useless at baseball. Or that 9 year old girl who is the youngest chess player to reach expert rank ever?
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women in the past because they have a working knowledge of time.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
IS there a difference between the average Elo of men and women in the ranked german chess population?
Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear?
ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women. In real jobs, women can claim that society is holding her back. She didn't get her promotion because she's a "woman." In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything?
There was a belief that black baseball players are inferior to white baseball players. That was proven wrong when blacks were allowed into the MLB and everyone could see their ability. If women are truly equal to men in term of ability. They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
To me the answer lies in biology.
Just a few things you fedorable bigot. No hidden top girls in gaming, what about scarlet or hafu in wow? Tossgirl was a low tier pro in bw, which means she was better than 99.9^100 percent of everyone to ever play the game. And Jenny Finch struck out something like 23 major leaguers, but shes clearly useless at baseball. Or that 9 year old girl who is the youngest chess player to reach expert rank ever?
easy there with the name calling.
replace all your example with a male doing it....then realize how worthless those accomplishments are in the grand scale. It doesn't matter if these people are 99.9% better than everyone else.
scarlett doesn't count tossgirl's TLPD record = 3-19 (13.64%). doesn't know anything about hafu. so i will not make judgement. Seems like a legit gamer.
insert more coin and try again.
How many games would you win against korean pros? Tossgirl counts becuase she was better than 99.9x10^100, but because she isn't better than 99.9x`10^101 percent of bw players she doesn't count? I bet she'd still stomp you. And you completely dodged Jenny Finch striking out 23 of the best baseball players in the world and a 9 year old girl being the fastest to expert in chess fucking ever, so your post means nothing bigot.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote: [quote] I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Basically you can continue to maintain that my support of feminism means I'm trying to oppress men but I, in turn, will continue to maintain that your opposition to feminism means you're a Death Eater and trying to help Voldemort. Now you might think this is a fucking stupid argument, and I would agree, but unfortunately it's your argument and you've refused to drop it so here we are.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
Quick! We need to hire an eulogist! For KwarK's sanity!
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote: [quote] And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
[quote]
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
You're a Death Eater.
Sorry I don't compute to horrible movie franchises.
On April 13 2014 14:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
You're a Death Eater.
Sorry I don't compute to horrible movie franchises.
If you're against feminism then according to my made up definition that makes you a Death Eater by the exact same logic that you use to argue I'm trying to oppress men by being a feminist. Any time you'd like to agree upon common language for a debate just let me know and we'll work out a deal because we both disagree with oppressing men. But until that time I'm sorry but you're always going to be in the wrong because wtf how can you support Voldemort?
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
that, my friend, was not what you were arguing for the past few pages. but I'm not going to join this circle any more, so carry on
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
Giving birth doesn't seem so bad.
I guess you could go out and break both legs. The effects would be somewhat similar.
Xiphos, feminism is not about making everything artificially equal, it's about providing equal opportunities, just like that video you linked advocates. Here's Merriam-Webster: It is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities."
One point that is sometimes argued about is whether feminism represents advocacy for men's equal opportunities or solely women's equal opportunities. But the fact is that although men are prevented from doing certain things due to their gender, this doesn't mean that this justifies women having unequal opportunities due to their gender.
That's what feminism is. It's not about settling scores or lowering men's status or whatever. It's about equal opportunity to do things for women / both sexes. That does NOT mean we need exactly equal numbers of male and female CEOs, but it does mean that women should not have a harder time getting a job due to their gender than a man who is just as good a candidate.
This logically goes both ways, even if feminism doesn't cover both sides. If a man was restricted from becoming a flight attendant just because an airline didn't like having male flight attendants, this would also be unjust. Why? Because there is no difference applying the logic of feminism to males as there is applying the logic to females. There is nothing in feminism preventing men from also gaining equal opportunities The reason we focus on females is there has historically been more limitation to how females could behave than how males could behave, and we are trying to change that.
So what's your point? Do you think women should have equal opportunities as men when their gender doesn't inherently prevent them from doing their job effectively? If that is not what you think feminism is, you are not criticizing feminism, you are criticizing something else. Just because some people who call themselves feminists have weird ideas, doesn't mean this represents what feminism actually IS. That's a logical fallacy. Whatever feminism is in the dictionary, is what it is in reality.
TL; DR: If you support equal opportunities for men and women when gender doesn't inherently inhibit someone from doing something, you are a feminist.
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
that, my friend, was not what you were arguing for the past few pages. but I'm not going to join this circle any more, so carry on
Seriously? Reading comprehension is that hard? It is exactly what he said. Over, and over, and fucking over again.
They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two.
...
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population
...
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier
...
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
...
Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
...
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
...
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
On April 13 2014 17:29 Jumperer wrote: I believe in equal right and equal opportunities. Everyone no matter what race sex and gender should have an equal chance to try out for a job. Nevertheless, feminism today are complaining about things which make no sense whatsoever. Right now, boys are the ones falling behind in schools, academically and socially. Nothing is being done about it. And what the hell is this ridiculous #banbossy movement? Whoever that is in support of that movement should learn about the word irony. Invented victumhood must be stopped. And why are they jumping on kirsten dunst for saying her opinions. What happened to society? It seem as if we live in a world where it's impossible to express a minority opinion without being attacked/insulted by the majority.
If they wanted equality, they would be called "equalists". But you will never see a feminist group helping men who have been raped or in an abusive relationship.
and I would like to say that just because something is in a study doesn't mean it's correct. Studies can be wrong and flawed. Factors can be manipulated to get the right result. Take for instance in 1969, when psychologist Nathaniel Brandon published a highly acclaimed paper called “The Psychology of Self-Esteem.” He argued that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life,” and his idea soon became the hot new thing in education. Everyone believed in it and policies were created to boost self-esteem. Years later, the movement ended in complete failure.
Therefore you are a feminist, as well as a believer in male equal rights and opportunities. Your qualms are not with feminism, but with people who call themselves feminists. Feminists should logically be "equalists" if they are behaving consistently with the logic of feminism, if they are not it's their fault, not the fault of feminism as an ideology.
On April 13 2014 17:29 Jumperer wrote: I believe in equal right and equal opportunities. Everyone no matter what race sex and gender should have an equal chance to try out for a job. Nevertheless, feminism today are complaining about things which make no sense whatsoever. Right now, boys are the ones falling behind in schools, academically and socially. Nothing is being done about it. And what the hell is this ridiculous #banbossy movement? Whoever that is in support of that movement should learn about the word irony. Invented victumhood must be stopped. And why are they jumping on kirsten dunst for saying her opinions. What happened to society? It seem as if we live in a world where it's impossible to express a minority opinion without being attacked/insulted by the majority.
If they wanted equality, they would be called "equalists". But you will never see a feminist group helping men who have been raped or in an abusive relationship.
and I would like to say that just because something is in a study doesn't mean it's correct. Studies can be wrong and flawed. Factors can be manipulated to get the right result. Take for instance in 1969, when psychologist Nathaniel Brandon published a highly acclaimed paper called “The Psychology of Self-Esteem.” He argued that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life,” and his idea soon became the hot new thing in education. Everyone believed in it and policies were created to boost self-esteem. Years later, the movement ended in complete failure.
Therefore you are a feminist, as well as a believer in male equal rights and opportunities. Your qualms are not with feminism, but with people who call themselves feminists. Feminists should logically be "equalists" if they are behaving consistently with the logic of feminism, if they are not it's their fault, not the fault of feminism as an ideology.
Maybe you should read a book about feminism that isn't the dictionary.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
IS there a difference between the average Elo of men and women in the ranked german chess population?
On April 13 2014 17:29 Jumperer wrote: I believe in equal right and equal opportunities. Everyone no matter what race sex and gender should have an equal chance to try out for a job. Nevertheless, feminism today are complaining about things which make no sense whatsoever. Right now, boys are the ones falling behind in schools, academically and socially. Nothing is being done about it. And what the hell is this ridiculous #banbossy movement? Whoever that is in support of that movement should learn about the word irony. Invented victumhood must be stopped. And why are they jumping on kirsten dunst for saying her opinions. What happened to society? It seem as if we live in a world where it's impossible to express a minority opinion without being attacked/insulted by the majority.
If they wanted equality, they would be called "equalists". But you will never see a feminist group helping men who have been raped or in an abusive relationship.
and I would like to say that just because something is in a study doesn't mean it's correct. Studies can be wrong and flawed. Factors can be manipulated to get the right result. Take for instance in 1969, when psychologist Nathaniel Brandon published a highly acclaimed paper called “The Psychology of Self-Esteem.” He argued that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life,” and his idea soon became the hot new thing in education. Everyone believed in it and policies were created to boost self-esteem. Years later, the movement ended in complete failure.
Therefore you are a feminist, as well as a believer in male equal rights and opportunities. Your qualms are not with feminism, but with people who call themselves feminists. Feminists should logically be "equalists" if they are behaving consistently with the logic of feminism, if they are not it's their fault, not the fault of feminism as an ideology.
Maybe you should read a book about feminism that isn't the dictionary.
On April 13 2014 17:29 Jumperer wrote: I believe in equal right and equal opportunities. Everyone no matter what race sex and gender should have an equal chance to try out for a job. Nevertheless, feminism today are complaining about things which make no sense whatsoever. Right now, boys are the ones falling behind in schools, academically and socially. Nothing is being done about it. And what the hell is this ridiculous #banbossy movement? Whoever that is in support of that movement should learn about the word irony. Invented victumhood must be stopped. And why are they jumping on kirsten dunst for saying her opinions. What happened to society? It seem as if we live in a world where it's impossible to express a minority opinion without being attacked/insulted by the majority.
If they wanted equality, they would be called "equalists". But you will never see a feminist group helping men who have been raped or in an abusive relationship.
and I would like to say that just because something is in a study doesn't mean it's correct. Studies can be wrong and flawed. Factors can be manipulated to get the right result. Take for instance in 1969, when psychologist Nathaniel Brandon published a highly acclaimed paper called “The Psychology of Self-Esteem.” He argued that “feelings of self-esteem were the key to success in life,” and his idea soon became the hot new thing in education. Everyone believed in it and policies were created to boost self-esteem. Years later, the movement ended in complete failure.
Therefore you are a feminist, as well as a believer in male equal rights and opportunities. Your qualms are not with feminism, but with people who call themselves feminists. Feminists should logically be "equalists" if they are behaving consistently with the logic of feminism, if they are not it's their fault, not the fault of feminism as an ideology.
Can you make that distinction? We judge the Nazis for starting a World War that costed roughly 80 million lives. The communist get away with murdering millions of countryman in different places (forcing millions of Ukranians to starve to death is prolly the most brutal thing done in the history of mankind) in the "name of the people". i'm not that naive, I consider the elimination of those that oppose you the natural result of eliminating individual rights and a government with unlimited power.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
The problem with a comparison to hair color is that we have much better reasons to assume hair color and chess talent are independent, than chess participation and chess talent.
There are no "better reasons" to assume hair color and chess talent are more independent than sex and chess talent. Regardless, you missed the point of the analogy, so please address this: the point was that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with a premise of equality between the two. This is valid both for the hair color analogy and for the actual chess ratings, in terms of who places best. What do you not understand about this? I'm not even discussing any assumption you might have about the non-playing population at this point, all I'm pointing out is that there being more men at the top in chess does not support the idea that men are better than women at chess because of participation rates. Again, you're free to still argue that there are differences between the two, but you can't support that idea with your original argument based on the differences in placement between men and women, since those are virtually entirely explained by participation rates, as the study I cited demonstrates. Can you finally acknowledge this point? I sincerely don't see how I can make this clearer than with the analogy I used:
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
On April 13 2014 13:32 Darkwhite wrote: You are sort of right on a technicality; the article does not scale up the size of the female population, by inventing additional players. They just do the opposite instead; they scale down the general (predominately male) population, assuming mean and variation remains unchanged. The difference is entirely superficial; solving for y in terms of x, rather than for x in terms of y, but maybe that clears something up.
It's not a technicality - one of the central accusations you were making towards the article was that they were, according to you, projecting onto an imagined additional female playing population the values obtained for the actual female playing chess population. As I repeatedly explained to you, that was entirely wrong, so I'm glad to see you're now abandoning that erroneous stance. They don't "just do the opposite", however, and the difference isn't "entirely superficial" at all. They use the mean and standard distribution of the total population to make predictions with regards to the expected ratings of the top 100 male and top 100 females. There is absolutely nothing methodologically wrong with this with regards to their objective in the paper.
On April 13 2014 13:32 Darkwhite wrote: Now, why is this scaling a problem? Let's quote someone you might listen to:
As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group"
Replace surplus females taking the SAT with surplus males playing chess. There is every reason to expect that, were there fewer males playing chess, the pruning wouldn't be random, but biased towards the less talented players.
Now, in the SATs, the ratio of females to males is roughly 1.2 (one point two). In the sample of German chess players, the factor is approximately 17 (seventeen). If there were supposed to be any noticeable effect on the mean values from uneven populations in the SATs, the effect would be orders of magnitude larger in the case of the German chess players. And that effect would pull, as Hyde argues, towards a larger male advantage in mean value, than the one which already exists.
You can't have your population normalization effect to pull whichever way you want from case to case.
I already addressed this argument of yours earlier in the thread. The comment you quoted from Hyde out of context was a comment on a possible additional bias pertaining to the sampling problem of S.A.T. test takers. It touched upon one specific issue in the selection of a group (SAT test takers) among a population which had followed the same education (high school), as opposed to the group of chess players which has a training different from that of the rest of the population, namely that of playing chess. The group characteristics issues were different from chess, which makes any comparison meaningless, but beyond this it was just a possible additional bias which was not part of her actual demonstration at all and which can be entirely dismissed with no effect on that demonstration. With regards to the chess results under study, however, the differences in population rates entirely explained the differences in ratings favoring men at the top. This isn't me or the authors of the study bringing up an explanation that might explain something. This was the actual result of the study. Can you address that result?
Beyond this clear evidence which entirely debunks your point about there being more men at the top pointing towards male superiority, let's look at two aspects of the other point you are making with regards to the rest of the population. Your idea is this: if we made everyone play chess, men would end up being better than women. I repeatedly pointed out the major problem with this assertion, namely that it is not based on any evidence whatsoever, but it's worth addressing another aspect: of course if you simply put any non-playing group in front of a chess board and looked at how they fared compared to the playing population, you would see the non-playing group do worse: they do not have the training, practice and experience of the playing population. This is true of non-playing women compared to playing women and playing men, but you seem to forget that the exact same thing is true of non-playing men. If you compared non-playing men to playing men, you would see the playing men fare way better - would that hint at biological differences between playing men and non-playing men? Obviously not - again, the training, practice and experience would explain the discrepancies in performance. So you can't simply argue "if we took more women into account we would have lower results for women than men, so this means biological factors have an impact", because those women would need to have the same chess training, etc., before any relevant comparison could be made.
And that brings me back to the first issue with your claim of there being biological differences which lead men to be better at chess: it is based on no evidence whatsoever. There is absolutely no evidence that indicates women who do not play chess would play worse than men who do not play chess, or that increasing the number of women playing/making everyone in the world play chess would result in a male-female gap. This is you making a claim based on your pro-male bias without the slightest bit of evidence to support it - there is simply no real-world foundation behind the idea that the cultural factors which lead less women to play chess correlate with lower innate abilities. The evidence we have for women who do play chess does not hint at this, and neither does the evidence for women who tried chess and stopped. There's literally nothing that even suggests your claim is true. If you wish to claim otherwise, where is your evidence?
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
that, my friend, was not what you were arguing for the past few pages. but I'm not going to join this circle any more, so carry on
As KlaCkoN (whom I thank) showed, that is exactly what I've been arguing. I have also argued something else, namely that Darkwhite's assumptions with regards to the non-playing female population aren't rooted in evidence, but with regards to the paper I have clearly stated that it demonstrates that the preponderance of male at the top does not indicate a male superiority compared to women, because the differences in population sizes explain that preponderance. It is the very reason I cited this article - it debunks Darkwhite's argument in his original post.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
IS there a difference between the average Elo of men and women in the ranked german chess population?
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
IS there a difference between the average Elo of men and women in the ranked german chess population?
Yes.
M: u=1984, o=200, N=16864 W: u=1844, o=217, N=953
Lixler, you are entirely correct that the study by Bilalić et al. does not address the possible existence of differences in average ratings between the male and female populations. They chose to examine differences at the top (by taking the mean and s.d. of the entire population into account, however, which is essential for the relevancy of their findings), because the preponderance of men at the highest levels is often invoked to support the idea that men are naturally more competent. You say it's "statistically to be expected" that there will be more members of the larger population at the top, and that's true, but it would be possible for the members of the larger population to fare even much better than would be statistically expected of them. The study shows that this isn't the case - the differences in performances between the top 100 men and women are exactly what you would expect them to be based on the respective sizes of the total men population and the total women population. As such, and as I wrote earlier in this post, the study entirely debunks the argument Darkwhite presented me with in his first post, which was about men being at the top of rankings implying that they're naturally better, not about possible differences in the average ratings of males and females.
If we now turn to these possible differences in rating averages, therefore, we have to take a look at other studies. This exact issue has, in fact, been analyzed in Christopher F. Chabris and Mark E. Glickman, "Sex Differences in Intellectual Performance - Analysis of a Large Cohort of Competitive Chess Players", Psychological Science, Vol. 17, No. 12, 2006, pp. 1040-1046 (I cited it earlier for its findings on male and female drop-out rates). The authors found that there were indeed differences between males and females in terms of their respective average ratings, but they discovered that there was a gap favoring males only in areas were there was a higher proportion of males playing than females. In areas where participation rates of male and female players were equivalent, there was no gap between the two in average ratings. To quote the article (pp. 1044-1045):
Finally, we addressed the participation-rate hypothesis. If in the general population the number of boys who play chess is substantially larger than the number of girls, the best ones ultimately becoming USCF members and playing competitively, then it follows statistically that the average boys’ ratings will be higher than the average girls’ ratings (among competitive players) even if the distribution of abilities in the general population is the same (Charness & Gerchak, 1996; Glickman & Chabris, 1996). In fact, far fewer girls than boys enter competitive chess, which suggests that the general population of chess-playing girls is much smaller than that of boys. [...]
Boys generally had higher ratings than girls, particularly in the male-dominated ZIP codes. However, in the four ZIP codes with at least 50% girls (areas in Oakland, CA; Bakersfield, CA; Lexington,KY; and Pierre, SD), boys did not have higher ratings. [...] Combining all ZIP-code areas where the proportion of girls was at least 50%, the sex difference was only 35.2 points in favor of males, which was not significant (p = .59). The same result was obtained in an age-adjusted analysis, which yielded a sex difference of 40.8 points (p = .53). [...]
A longitudinal analysis of matched male-female pairs showed that girls and boys of equal strength did not diverge in playing ability or likelihood of dropping out; instead, boys and girls entered competitive chess with different average ability levels, and this difference propagated throughout the rating pool. However, this initial difference was not found in locales where boys and girls entered the rating system in equal proportions. Taken together, our results support the hypothesis that there are far fewer women than men at the highest level in chess because fewer women enter competitive chess at the lowest level (a hypothesis consistent with men and women having equal chess-relevant cognitive abilities).
In other words, the gap in average ratings does not support the idea that men are naturally better at chess than women either. There is simply no evidence to support this claim.
On April 14 2014 05:15 Jumperer wrote: A+ players on iccup are not better than B- players on iccup because the gap in ratings does not support the idea that A+ players are naturally better at starcraft than B- players. There is simply no evidence to support this claim.
If you think you're drawing a parallel here, you've just shown to everybody that you're incapable of processing even the simplest of concepts.
They specifically said it's not significant. Not significant essentially means in the margin of error. That's not to say that it's perfectly even and equal, that's not the point.
On April 14 2014 06:51 Jumperer wrote: It's funny how they said "boys did not have higher ratings" but when you look at the data you can still see the differences. Silly scientists.
For those who actually haven't read the paper, the actual mean difference between male and female is 500 points on the data they used, they then adjusted based on some parameters (such as you play a lot, so less rating for you!), and get the figure of 250(iirc), then they poke through the data some more and using adjusted ratings come with that sex difference of 32.5~.
I think part of the male advantage is obsession, and being competitive.
Also how come men dominate so hard at the GM level? 100:1 while with their data 10% of games are played by women, when droprates are the same?
I'm sure you could do the same for starcraft and show that westerners are not worst than koreans at sc2 and the difference in sc2 is much much smaller, should be an easier task!
On April 14 2014 09:04 sibs wrote: For those who actually haven't read the paper, the actual mean difference between male and female is 500 points on the data they used, they then adjusted based on some parameters (such as you play a lot, so less rating for you!), and get the figure of 250(iirc), then they poke through the data some more and using adjusted ratings come with that sex difference of 32.5~.
I think part of the male advantage is obsession, and being competitive.
Also how come men dominate so hard at the GM level? 100:1 while with their data 10% of games are played by women, when droprates are the same?
I'm sure you could do the same for starcraft and show that westerners are not worst than koreans at sc2 and the difference in sc2 is much much smaller, should be an easier task!
That just mean that men are 10 X better than women in the game.
And chuckled at the foreigner to Korean comparison.
On April 14 2014 09:04 sibs wrote: For those who actually haven't read the paper, the actual mean difference between male and female is 500 points on the data they used, they then adjusted based on some parameters (such as you play a lot, so less rating for you!), and get the figure of 250(iirc), then they poke through the data some more and using adjusted ratings come with that sex difference of 32.5~
No, that is not what they do.
On April 14 2014 09:04 sibs wrote: I'm sure you could do the same for starcraft and show that westerners are not worst than koreans at sc2 and the difference in sc2 is much much smaller, should be an easier task!
That is not what the paper shows. Nobody is denying that men are placing higher/have higher average ratings than women overall. But do you think that South Koreans are better than Europeans at SC2 because of biological differences between the two? Because that's what Darkwhite & co are arguing for men vs women.
The paper does adjust ratings, the mean goes from 500 to 250 when they adjust for "male advantage" ("frequency of play—a highly significant male advantage"), then they use this graph that seems pretty fucking random to me of male/female adjusted rating difference to proportion of girls on zipcode and try to find some pattern on it, I honestly see none, if you linear fitted those points I wonder what would you get.
On April 14 2014 10:09 sibs wrote: The paper does adjust ratings, the mean goes from 500 to 250 when they adjust for "male advantage" ("frequency of play—a highly significant male advantage"), then they use this graph that seems pretty fucking random to me of male/female adjusted rating difference to proportion of girls on zipcode and try to find some pattern on it, I honestly see none, if you linear fitted those points I wonder what would you get. + Show Spoiler [Fig. 4] +
You are confusing/amalgamating different parts of the paper. They examine how past and present frequency of play accounts for differences in ratings in the "cross-sectional analyses of sex differences" section. Controlling for these variables leads them to observe that a 150-200 ELO point difference (which you mentioned earlier) remains. The 35.2 point difference between male and female players mentioned later in the article, however, does not result from simply controlling for additional variables in the same sample, contrary to what you were saying. It is found in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section and corresponds to the average ELO point difference found when "combining all ZIP-code areas where the proportion of girls was at least 50%" (p. 1044). That is a different sample from the one used earlier.
Yea, thats what I said, just not very clearly , they're further limiting the already ajudsted data using a graph where I don't see much of a pattern, picking 4 data points.
Where are you reading that they used "the already adjusted data"? They tried an age-adjusted analysis after the initial result and concluded it did not change the said result (still not a significant difference), but the initial data did not account for the variables accounted for in the earlier sections of the paper (at least from what I see). In any case, the entire point of looking at the four areas specifically is that they are areas where the proportion of female players was equal to, or above, the proportion of male players. In all of them, the gap in ratings was no longer there (I don't think you disagree with this, but I thought I might as well repeat what they do here).
You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
Even if you come to a consensus that males in general is smarter (or whatever), that doesn't change the goal of feminism one bit. It's about have equal opportunities. If there is a woman good enough to do a job, then the general consensus that women isn't as well suited for the job shouldn't play a part in her not getting the job. And vice versa. Unless you can prove that one gender is unequivocally better at something why does this matter?
Let's say you had a job where you wanted to find the very smartest person you could find to perform it. If you knew that the smartest people in the world were all male you could restrict your search to only men.
On April 14 2014 16:21 IgnE wrote: Let's say you had a job where you wanted to find the very smartest person you could find to perform it. If you knew that the smartest people in the world were all male you could restrict your search to only men.
On April 14 2014 16:02 gruff wrote: Even if you come to a consensus that males in general is smarter (or whatever), that doesn't change the goal of feminism one bit. It's about have equal opportunities. If there is a woman good enough to do a job, then the general consensus that women isn't as well suited for the job shouldn't play a part in her not getting the job. And vice versa. Unless you can prove that one gender is unequivocally better at something why does this matter?
Statistical equality in the more prestigious jobs does seem to be a goal of feminism, so such a finding would definitely have some significance.
On April 14 2014 12:44 sibs wrote: You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
No, you are wrong, they are not "the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency)", because 1. they adjust for age later on with that sample (as indicated at the end of p. 1044) and 2. that sample is made of people who only received a rating at the end of the year, and the authors do not control for the variables "number of games played in the previous three years" and "number of games played in the current year" as they do earlier in the article. In fact, the first paragraph of the section "sex differences initial ratings of new tournament players" contains the sentence "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points". There is no mention of this being an adjusted value, and they write that adjusting for age did not change the result.
The authors do not speak of a linear correlation but of a threshold effect. They do not arbitrarily choose four data points: they look at the areas for which women make up at least half of the players and see that they feature no gap in average ratings between male and female players. Beyond these specific results, however, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
On April 14 2014 16:02 gruff wrote: Even if you come to a consensus that males in general is smarter (or whatever), that doesn't change the goal of feminism one bit. It's about have equal opportunities. If there is a woman good enough to do a job, then the general consensus that women isn't as well suited for the job shouldn't play a part in her not getting the job. And vice versa. Unless you can prove that one gender is unequivocally better at something why does this matter?
Agreed.
However, when you say "the goal of feminism" you should be aware of the fact that not all people who call themselves feminists think the way you do. The very fact that we're discussing the claim of whether men and women are truly created equal on the most basic level (which it would seem they are not) is evidence of this. Because if your starting point is that there are no biological differences what-so-ever then you're left with trying to explain these variations due to outside forces, and outside forces alone. Even if that isn't the explanation. And so you take incorrect action which in the long run will end up hurting people.
On April 14 2014 12:44 sibs wrote: You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
No, you are wrong, they are not "the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency)", because 1. they adjust for age later on with that sample (as indicated at the end of p. 1044) and 2. that sample is made of people who only received a rating at the end of the year, and the authors do not control for the variables "number of games played in the previous three years" and "number of games played in the current year" as they do earlier in the article. In fact, the first paragraph of the section "sex differences initial ratings of new tournament players" contains the sentence "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points". There is no mention of this being an adjusted value, and they write that adjusting for age did not change the result.
The authors do not speak of a linear correlation but of a threshold effect. They do not arbitrarily choose four data points: they look at the areas for which women make up at least half of the players and see that they feature no gap in average ratings between male and female players. Beyond these specific results, however, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
Nah, you are wrong , they adjust it for age later because they use the 6 to 12 subset only for the graph so no need for that, but you can just look at the graph and see, look at the little dots, do they seem to average 200 or 500? There's only a few possibilties from that: 1.)girls are way better at average than other girls in relations to boy on that specific age bracket. 2.)the difference is playtime is adjusted 3.) Population is extremely lopsided? 4.) Graph is wrong.
1. It's a possibility they're very slightly better at that age bracket, considering the age adjusted net a higher difference for 4 data points, but very very unlikely they're overwhelmingly better at that age bracket. 2. The probable option. 3. Even then it doesn't look possible to get a 500point difference. 4. Seems it's just adjusted to me not wrong.
Anyhow the end point is that the correlation between more girls playing and better girl performance is at very very best doubtful, there's several regions where girls "outperform" boys or perform just as well that have a great majority of boys, and at 45% to 49% you'd get 3 more data points completely contradicting their proposed explanation for the difference. The 20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket, honestly the data doesn't support the magical threshold theory, it's just 4 data points on a graph that's all over the place, they just went with it IMO.
On April 14 2014 12:44 sibs wrote: You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
No, you are wrong, they are not "the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency)", because 1. they adjust for age later on with that sample (as indicated at the end of p. 1044) and 2. that sample is made of people who only received a rating at the end of the year, and the authors do not control for the variables "number of games played in the previous three years" and "number of games played in the current year" as they do earlier in the article. In fact, the first paragraph of the section "sex differences initial ratings of new tournament players" contains the sentence "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points". There is no mention of this being an adjusted value, and they write that adjusting for age did not change the result.
The authors do not speak of a linear correlation but of a threshold effect. They do not arbitrarily choose four data points: they look at the areas for which women make up at least half of the players and see that they feature no gap in average ratings between male and female players. Beyond these specific results, however, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
Nah, you are wrong , they adjust it for age later because they use the 6 to 12 subset only for the graph so no need for that, but you can just look at the graph and see, look at the little dots, do they seem to average 200 or 500? There's only a few possibilties from that: 1.)girls are way better at average than other girls in relations to boy on that specific age bracket. 2.)the difference is playtime is adjusted 3.) Population is extremely lopsided? 4.) Graph is wrong.
1. It's a possibility they're very slightly better at that age bracket, considering the age adjusted net a higher difference for 4 data points, but very very unlikely they're overwhelmingly better at that age bracket. 2. The probable option. 3. Even then it doesn't look possible to get a 500point difference. 4. Seems it's just adjusted to me not wrong.
Anyhow the end point is that the correlation between more girls playing and better girl performance is at very very best doubtful, there's several regions where girls "outperform" boys or perform just as well that have a great majority of boys, and at 45% to 49% you'd get 3 more data points completely contradicting their proposed explanation for the difference. The 20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket, honestly the data doesn't support the magical threshold theory, it's just 4 data points on a graph that's all over the place, they just went with it IMO.
Again, you are confusing the way they treat the different samples used in the article. The sample used in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section is described in the first paragraph of the section (p. 1044):
"we examined for each year from 1998 through 2004 the set of players of ages 6 through 12 who had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one."
This is not the same sample as the one used in the "cross-sectional analyses of sex differences" section (although this one includes the 6-12 sub-sample) (p. 1041):
"The data for our study included rating information on all USCF members who were active between 1992 and 2004 and had both birth date and sex recorded in the USCF database, a total population of 256,741 tournament players."
In that section, they controlled for age and play frequency "for rating lists from 1995 through 2004" and "players with established ratings in the given year".
The reason you see dots on the graph you quoted around the 200 points difference region is that the non-adjusted differences in ratings between boys and girls studied in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section were smaller on average than the non-adjusted differences in ratings between men and women in the larger population. This is to be expected, notably since players aged 6-12 have a much smaller range of ratings than players aged 5-95. This smaller difference in ratings between young boys and girls was quantified by the authors on p. 1044: "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points in favor of the males". There is no mention of any adjustment for additional variables, unlike in the earlier sections (for example, in the "sex differences in longitudinal rating changes" section, they write "For each player, we recorded four variables: 1995 year-end rating, age, number of games played in 1995, and number of games played in the previous 3 years."), and the one variable they do adjust for later on is explicitly stated, first when the adjustment is done on the 6-12 sample ("Linearly adjusting for age [...] did not change the significance or magnitude of the sex difference"), then when it is done using the data for the four areas where girls were at least as numerous as guys: "The same result was obtained in an age-adjusted analysis, which yielded a sex difference of 40.8 points (p = .53)". If they had adjusted for other variables, they would have stated so, exactly like they did in all previous sections.
With regards to your final point, again, the authors do not suggest there is a linear correlation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that the "20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket", since that's not how the graph looks to me - the 30-40% bracket is made of extremes but the mean doesn't seem higher than the mean of the previous one. Regardless, and whether or not you agree with the selection, the point is that in the areas with equal proportions of male and female players, there was no rating gap. And like I said, beyond these results and even if you want to discard them completely, the authors explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
On April 14 2014 12:44 sibs wrote: You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
No, you are wrong, they are not "the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency)", because 1. they adjust for age later on with that sample (as indicated at the end of p. 1044) and 2. that sample is made of people who only received a rating at the end of the year, and the authors do not control for the variables "number of games played in the previous three years" and "number of games played in the current year" as they do earlier in the article. In fact, the first paragraph of the section "sex differences initial ratings of new tournament players" contains the sentence "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points". There is no mention of this being an adjusted value, and they write that adjusting for age did not change the result.
The authors do not speak of a linear correlation but of a threshold effect. They do not arbitrarily choose four data points: they look at the areas for which women make up at least half of the players and see that they feature no gap in average ratings between male and female players. Beyond these specific results, however, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
Nah, you are wrong , they adjust it for age later because they use the 6 to 12 subset only for the graph so no need for that, but you can just look at the graph and see, look at the little dots, do they seem to average 200 or 500? There's only a few possibilties from that: 1.)girls are way better at average than other girls in relations to boy on that specific age bracket. 2.)the difference is playtime is adjusted 3.) Population is extremely lopsided? 4.) Graph is wrong.
1. It's a possibility they're very slightly better at that age bracket, considering the age adjusted net a higher difference for 4 data points, but very very unlikely they're overwhelmingly better at that age bracket. 2. The probable option. 3. Even then it doesn't look possible to get a 500point difference. 4. Seems it's just adjusted to me not wrong.
Anyhow the end point is that the correlation between more girls playing and better girl performance is at very very best doubtful, there's several regions where girls "outperform" boys or perform just as well that have a great majority of boys, and at 45% to 49% you'd get 3 more data points completely contradicting their proposed explanation for the difference. The 20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket, honestly the data doesn't support the magical threshold theory, it's just 4 data points on a graph that's all over the place, they just went with it IMO.
Again, you are confusing the way they treat the different samples used in the article. The sample used in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section is described in the first paragraph of the section (p. 1044):
"we examined for each year from 1998 through 2004 the set of players of ages 6 through 12 who had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one."
This is not the same sample as the one used in the "cross-sectional analyses of sex differences" section (although this one includes the 6-12 sub-sample) (p. 1041):
"The data for our study included rating information on all USCF members who were active between 1992 and 2004 and had both birth date and sex recorded in the USCF database, a total population of 256,741 tournament players."
In that section, they controlled for age and play frequency "for rating lists from 1995 through 2004" and "players with established ratings in the given year".
The reason you see dots on the graph you quoted around the 200 points difference region is that the non-adjusted differences in ratings between boys and girls studied in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section were smaller on average than the non-adjusted differences in ratings between men and women in the larger population. This is to be expected, notably since players aged 6-12 have a much smaller range of ratings than players aged 5-95. This smaller difference in ratings between young boys and girls was quantified by the authors on p. 1044: "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points in favor of the males". There is no mention of any adjustment for additional variables, unlike in the earlier sections (for example, in the "sex differences in longitudinal rating changes" section, they write "For each player, we recorded four variables: 1995 year-end rating, age, number of games played in 1995, and number of games played in the previous 3 years."), and the one variable they do adjust for later on is explicitly stated, first when the adjustment is done on the 6-12 sample ("Linearly adjusting for age [...] did not change the significance or magnitude of the sex difference"), then when it is done using the data for the four areas where girls were at least as numerous as guys: "The same result was obtained in an age-adjusted analysis, which yielded a sex difference of 40.8 points (p = .53)". If they had adjusted for other variables, they would have stated so, exactly like they did in all previous sections.
With regards to your final point, again, the authors do not suggest there is a linear correlation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that the "20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket", since that's not how the graph looks to me - the 30-40% bracket is made of extremes but the mean doesn't seem higher than the mean of the previous one. Regardless, and whether or not you agree with the selection, the point is that in the areas with equal proportions of male and female players, there was no rating gap. And like I said, beyond these results and even if you want to discard them completely, the authors explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
They're studying sex differences in chess, so the first thing they do, is treat the data for other variables to try to see whats the sex difference, when they say sex difference after the initial analysis they mean the treated sex difference unless otherwise specified. Yes the difference between 6 to 12 was 110 to 200, instead of 150 to 200 for the whole population.
Yea my bad, I meant from 30 to 40 women are more competitive than for 40 to 50.
30 to 40 there's 9 data points, 4 close to zero, 5 close to average. 40 to 50 there's 6 data points, 1 close to zero, 5 close to average.
That graph is all over the place like I said, how they can draw conclusions from it is beyond me.
We conclude that the greater number of men at the highest levels in chess can be explained by the greater number of boys who enter chess at the lowest levels.
Fine but you wouldn't expect the same on the other end of the spectrum? It seems the higher the rating the less women are in it, which makes sense looking at the average, just having more players won't raise your average.
On April 14 2014 12:44 sibs wrote: You can tell it's the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency) by looking at the graph males have 200ish average higher ratings instead of 500~.
What I question is the correlation between greater population of girls playing on certain areas to better girl performance on average. The graph seems all over the place, they just arbitrarily choose 4 data points to fit their narrative, if they chose 7 shit breaks down, even with the adjusted data.
No, you are wrong, they are not "the adjusted ratings (for age/playing frequency)", because 1. they adjust for age later on with that sample (as indicated at the end of p. 1044) and 2. that sample is made of people who only received a rating at the end of the year, and the authors do not control for the variables "number of games played in the previous three years" and "number of games played in the current year" as they do earlier in the article. In fact, the first paragraph of the section "sex differences initial ratings of new tournament players" contains the sentence "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points". There is no mention of this being an adjusted value, and they write that adjusting for age did not change the result.
The authors do not speak of a linear correlation but of a threshold effect. They do not arbitrarily choose four data points: they look at the areas for which women make up at least half of the players and see that they feature no gap in average ratings between male and female players. Beyond these specific results, however, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
Nah, you are wrong , they adjust it for age later because they use the 6 to 12 subset only for the graph so no need for that, but you can just look at the graph and see, look at the little dots, do they seem to average 200 or 500? There's only a few possibilties from that: 1.)girls are way better at average than other girls in relations to boy on that specific age bracket. 2.)the difference is playtime is adjusted 3.) Population is extremely lopsided? 4.) Graph is wrong.
1. It's a possibility they're very slightly better at that age bracket, considering the age adjusted net a higher difference for 4 data points, but very very unlikely they're overwhelmingly better at that age bracket. 2. The probable option. 3. Even then it doesn't look possible to get a 500point difference. 4. Seems it's just adjusted to me not wrong.
Anyhow the end point is that the correlation between more girls playing and better girl performance is at very very best doubtful, there's several regions where girls "outperform" boys or perform just as well that have a great majority of boys, and at 45% to 49% you'd get 3 more data points completely contradicting their proposed explanation for the difference. The 20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket, honestly the data doesn't support the magical threshold theory, it's just 4 data points on a graph that's all over the place, they just went with it IMO.
Again, you are confusing the way they treat the different samples used in the article. The sample used in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section is described in the first paragraph of the section (p. 1044):
"we examined for each year from 1998 through 2004 the set of players of ages 6 through 12 who had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one."
This is not the same sample as the one used in the "cross-sectional analyses of sex differences" section (although this one includes the 6-12 sub-sample) (p. 1041):
"The data for our study included rating information on all USCF members who were active between 1992 and 2004 and had both birth date and sex recorded in the USCF database, a total population of 256,741 tournament players."
In that section, they controlled for age and play frequency "for rating lists from 1995 through 2004" and "players with established ratings in the given year".
The reason you see dots on the graph you quoted around the 200 points difference region is that the non-adjusted differences in ratings between boys and girls studied in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section were smaller on average than the non-adjusted differences in ratings between men and women in the larger population. This is to be expected, notably since players aged 6-12 have a much smaller range of ratings than players aged 5-95. This smaller difference in ratings between young boys and girls was quantified by the authors on p. 1044: "On average, the sex difference in ratings for these groups was 110 to 200 points in favor of the males". There is no mention of any adjustment for additional variables, unlike in the earlier sections (for example, in the "sex differences in longitudinal rating changes" section, they write "For each player, we recorded four variables: 1995 year-end rating, age, number of games played in 1995, and number of games played in the previous 3 years."), and the one variable they do adjust for later on is explicitly stated, first when the adjustment is done on the 6-12 sample ("Linearly adjusting for age [...] did not change the significance or magnitude of the sex difference"), then when it is done using the data for the four areas where girls were at least as numerous as guys: "The same result was obtained in an age-adjusted analysis, which yielded a sex difference of 40.8 points (p = .53)". If they had adjusted for other variables, they would have stated so, exactly like they did in all previous sections.
With regards to your final point, again, the authors do not suggest there is a linear correlation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that the "20% to 30% bracket also has less of a rating difference than the 30 to 40% bracket", since that's not how the graph looks to me - the 30-40% bracket is made of extremes but the mean doesn't seem higher than the mean of the previous one. Regardless, and whether or not you agree with the selection, the point is that in the areas with equal proportions of male and female players, there was no rating gap. And like I said, beyond these results and even if you want to discard them completely, the authors explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population.
They're studying sex differences in chess, so the first thing they do, is treat the data for other variables to try to see whats the sex difference, when they say sex difference after the initial analysis they mean the treated sex difference unless otherwise specified. Yes the difference between 6 to 12 was 110 to 200, instead of 150 to 200 for the whole population.
No, each time they account for/take into account additional variables, they explicitly specify it, including in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section. Why would they suddenly fail to specify it in this section and account for every variable except for age, to only bring back age later on? Your position is not reflected in what the authors state in the paper. The average difference for the 6-12 sample of 110 to 200 is unadjusted, and, as they explicitly state, adjusting for age "did not change the significance or magnitude of the sex difference".
That graph is all over the place like I said, how they can draw conclusions from it is beyond me.
The first result they get from the data is the overall average ratings difference between young boys and girls, and the second result they get is that there is no ratings difference in areas where there are at least as many girls as boys.
On April 15 2014 04:16 sibs wrote: Also this is really puzzling:
We conclude that the greater number of men at the highest levels in chess can be explained by the greater number of boys who enter chess at the lowest levels.
Fine but you wouldn't expect the same on the other end of the spectrum? It seems the higher the rating the less women are in it, which makes sense looking at the average, just having more players won't raise your average.
For an in-depth look at increasing proportions of men at the top, which is a different issue than that of average ratings, see the paper I cited on p. 31 of this thread: Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165.
On April 15 2014 05:07 Jumperer wrote: I suspect that they came up with that conclusion because it would be controversial to say something like "Men are superior to women at chess." Going against feminism's ideal is dangerous in today's world. It's an act of committing a social suicide. The researchers would likely get no more funding and their reputation ruined because it doesn't fit the popular narrative that women = men. They tried everything from adjusting rating to only picking 4 data points. They probably don't expect anyone to ever read the paper.
What would be controversial would be to say something that is directly contradicted by the results of the paper, which I'm guessing you did not read, exactly like the previous one I provided you with, since you do not have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
On April 15 2014 05:07 Jumperer wrote: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
No, each time they account for/take into account additional variables, they explicitly specify it, including in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section. Why would they suddenly fail to specify it in this section and account for every variable except for age, to only bring back age later on?
So why not just adjust for playing time and just come out with the conclusion that girls are better at chess? Because it's already adjusted. You don't adjust for variables, then come to a conclusion without taking those variables that massively pollute your data into consideration, it just makes a terrible argument.
Anyhow
Yea my bad, I meant from 30 to 40 women are more competitive than for 40 to 50.
30 to 40 there's 9 data points, 4 close to zero, 5 close to average. 40 to 50 there's 6 data points, 1 close to zero, 5 close to average.
That graph is all over the place like I said, how they can draw conclusions from it is beyond me.
Hasn't Starcraft taught us all that things don't have to be the same to be equal. There are advantages to being male and female, but which is overpowered is up do constant fruitless debate. lol
No, each time they account for/take into account additional variables, they explicitly specify it, including in the "sex differences in initial ratings of new tournament players" section. Why would they suddenly fail to specify it in this section and account for every variable except for age, to only bring back age later on?
So why not just adjust for playing time and just come out with the conclusion that girls are better at chess? Because it's already adjusted. You don't adjust for variables, then come to a conclusion without taking those variables that massively pollute your data into consideration, it just makes a terrible argument.
How do you know that adjusting for playing time would lead to such a conclusion? You don't. You don't know that it would have changed anything - accounting for age didn't. In addition, the data used in that specific sample consisted in different sets of players each year - those who "had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one". Accounting for variables like "playing time in the three previous years", taken into account for previous samples, therefore seems a lot less relevant. In any case, as I've said repeatedly, the authors did not write the variables you refer to were accounted for, and when a variable was accounted for they explicitly specified it. Like I wrote, your position is not reflected in what the authors state in the paper.
Yea my bad, I meant from 30 to 40 women are more competitive than for 40 to 50.
30 to 40 there's 9 data points, 4 close to zero, 5 close to average. 40 to 50 there's 6 data points, 1 close to zero, 5 close to average.
That graph is all over the place like I said, how they can draw conclusions from it is beyond me.
I already replied. The first result they get from the data is the overall average ratings difference between young boys and girls, and the second result they get is that there is no ratings difference in areas where there are at least as many girls as boys. In addition to the data, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population, which is what the argument was about.
Is it me or are people here trying to correlate chess or even Scrabble with intelligence ?
Not only is the argument astonishingly weak, but also surprising if it is supposed to come from psychological studies, which are supposed to share a strong link with other social sciences and humanities that stress the importance of cultural context.
It truly bothers me how some can ironically present such irrigorous arguments while discussing logic and cognitive capacities. Let's not mention the lack of a satisfying definition for the term "feminism" and voilà, armchair philosophy.
How do you know that adjusting for playing time would lead to such a conclusion? You don't.
Accounting for age didn't, because age isn't a major factor and obviously you're limiting your data to 6-12..."even after controlling for age and frequency of play, a highly significant male advantage.".
Again if you can control for a variable why wouldn't you?
I already replied. The first result they get...
You did reply but you didn't address it right, they cherry picked data, there's no pattern on that graph.
On April 15 2014 05:22 kwizach wrote: The first result they get from the data is the overall average ratings difference between young boys and girls, and the second result they get is that there is no ratings difference in areas where there are at least as many girls as boys.
So you are the type of person who listens to authority no matters what. We all can see the graph. We all can see that their explanation doesn't fit the data. They randomly picked 4 points to tell the story. The goddamn graph has no pattern to it.
No, I'm the type of person that looks at why they selected these four specific areas. The paragraphs you refer to weren't about interpreting the entire graph but about examining in more detail the four areas where girls were as numerous as boys.
On April 15 2014 05:22 kwizach wrote: For an in-depth look at increasing proportions of men at the top, which is a different issue than that of average ratings, see the paper I cited on p. 31 of this thread: Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165.
nice dodge, say why there is an increasing proportions of men at the top instead of making us read studies. Make a point. I'm not going to read the study, but I'm going to read the article written on the study. http://phys.org/news150954140.html
The results showed that the top three women had more points than expected, the next 70 or so pairs showed a small advantage for the men, and the last 20 pairs showed a small advantage for the women. Overall, men performed slightly better than expected, with an average advantage of 353 points, whereas the expected advantage was 341 points. Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one.
Hey look, this study actually supported my argument that men are generally better than women at chess. Thanks.
I didn't dodge anything - the issue of there being more men at the higher levels was extensively discussed in the previous pages and the article I cited then completely debunks the idea that it is because men are better at chess. It directly shows that statistically the ratings difference at the highest levels between men and women is exactly as you would expect it to be based on the differing sizes of the populations of men and women playing. This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
That's the point I made repeatedly for several pages, so I'm a bit surprised you're now accusing me of not making one. Perhaps instead of parroting along Darkwhite you should have taken the time to read my posts and the study. It would also have saved you the embarrassment of claiming that the article you just cited supports your point when it says exactly what I'm saying, which is not surprising since it reports the results of the study I used. Did you perhaps not read the very quote you just used? Here: "96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one". Also, from the title of your article: Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological) (bold emphasis mine). Again, nobody is denying that there are more men at the top - the entire point is that it is statistically normal for them to be at the top even if women are just as good as them simply because there are way more men competing. How can you possibly not understand this by now?
Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one.
so they found that men are better than women, that go against feminism. They don't want to get in trouble so they decide to explains everything by saying "actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one."
They have no explanation as to why as we go forward in ranks, the number of women decrease and the number of men increase in term of %. For you to bring up this study to counter sibs's argument is a fallacy because it doesn't address his argument.
They do have an explanation for it: it's the entire point of the scientific article I cited and of the page you just referred to, as I just explained to you (again). This doesn't "go against feminism" - it precisely debunks an argument used by people who want to use chess rankings to support the idea of male superiority. I don't think you could have misunderstood the argument more if you tried.
We know that participant rate doesn't mean anything because in scrable men still dominate despite being 22% of the population.
1. There are 278 ranked Scrabble Players in NZ of whom 62 are Male (22%) 2. The top 100 players contain 36 men (36%) 3. The Top 50 players contain 23 men (46%) 4. The top 20 players contain 13 men (65%) 5. The top 10 players have 9 men (90%) plus our current national champ, Joanne.
The articles referred to earlier directly show the impact of participation rates for the chess rankings we were discussing. This is not up for debate - Bilalic et al. mathematically demonstrate their impact in the paper cited. You took the NZ scrabble example from a random 2009 internet post - you have absolutely no idea of what other variables are at stake, with a possible influence contrary to that of participation rates. It's impossible to know without more data, which you don't have because you were only interested in copy/pasting a random post as fast as you could just so you could have something to keep defending your preconceived male superiority beliefs. To give you an example, if someone looked at SC2 results, that person would notice Korean players are a minority overall and yet completely dominate the rest of the world. According to your incredibly brilliant logic, this should lead that person to conclude that South Koreans are biologically wired in a way that makes them way better at SC2 than the rest of the world. Of course, we know that non-biological factors are at play, in particular the amount of training and the training environment. You don't know anything about the NZ scrabble situation, so this example should tell you enough about how incredibly ignorant it is to declare that the relevant variable is biology without actually investigating the issue.
That "article" is made of random reader reactions and 10 reasons put together by an outside blog, most of which are actually debunked in the articles I presented you with earlier, in particular those from Janet Hyde. At this point, you're probably typing "brain differences women men chess" in google and copy/pasting the results. Laughable.
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote: People like darkwhite and sibs will do that and they have already picked apart the studies. These studies clearly have an agendas. They will try to find any possible non biological excuse on why women are worse in chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc. As I said, studies can be manipulated to fit the narrative. When they find something that favor men, it's always followed up by an excuse. How about we stop making excuses? Why is there no female tiger woods in anything yet. We have 10 billion people on this earth surely some women should be able to overcome all odds and dominate at something in a competition with men, right? arn't they our equal? If they are our equal then why do they keep finishing up behind men in EVERYTHING.
Darkwhite misunderstood the study he was arguing against, as I showed extensively. As evidenced by your post, you misunderstood it completely, going as far as believing it supported your point, which is quite an achievement in not understanding something. sibs' objection to the latest study I posted is on the selection of data points for the second part of the last section, and does not concern the rest of the findings of the study or the authors' statistical explanation of the higher average ratings for men. In short, neither the preponderance of men at the top nor the higher average ratings for men can be used as arguments to support the idea that men are better at chess, for statistical reasons.
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote: You can believe in whatever you want. I look at the world around me and I see that at the highest level of anything it's always men at the top. Based on all this it's safe to say that women are not being kept from reaching the top. It seem like they just don't have the whatever it is to be at the top. Sure, there are some talented women who stand out like Danica Patrick(even though she hasn't won a race yet.) But overall, feminists shouldn't complain that the majority of CEOs are men. That's just life, and biology. I'm not against equal opportunities. I'm against stupid policies like forcing companies to have 50% male 50% female on their executive board.
Yes, you can "believe in whatever you want". The bottom line is that you do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that men are biologically better than women at "chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc". It is your preconceived and sexist beliefs which lead you to completely reject statistical evidence and scientific demonstrations which do not go your way. I'd love to see you defend the idea that there being more male CEOs is rooted in biology rather than overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors. What is "safe to say" is that you don't have a leg to stand on.
On April 15 2014 07:54 Kukaracha wrote: Is it me or are people here trying to correlate chess or even Scrabble with intelligence ?
Not only is the argument astonishingly weak, but also surprising if it is supposed to come from psychological studies, which are supposed to share a strong link with other social sciences and humanities that stress the importance of cultural context.
It truly bothers me how some can ironically present such irrigorous arguments while discussing logic and cognitive capacities. Let's not mention the lack of a satisfying definition for the term "feminism" and voilà, armchair philosophy.
The studies I cited are saying the opposite, namely that the statistical data available shows that chess results cannot be used to support the argument that men are better. It's just Jumperer who is spectacularly misinterpreting the studies.
How do you know that adjusting for playing time would lead to such a conclusion? You don't.
Accounting for age didn't, because age isn't a major factor and obviously you're limiting your data to 6-12..."even after controlling for age and frequency of play, a highly significant male advantage.".
Again if you can control for a variable why wouldn't you?
They did control for age, separately. That's what I said and it doesn't support your point since they explicitly stated they were controlling for age. They would have done so as well if they were controlling for other variables, as they did in the rest of the paper - and even more so if they were controlling for the other variables except for age, contrary to the earlier sections. Why wouldn't they? Perhaps, as I just explained, because "the data used in that specific sample consisted in different sets of players each year - those who "had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one". Accounting for variables like "playing time in the three previous years", taken into account for previous samples, therefore seems a lot less relevant."
You did reply but you didn't address it right, they cherry picked data, there's no pattern on that graph.
Cherry picking data would have been randomly selecting all of the data points where girls scored better than boys. In this case, they explained that they wanted to look at "places where girls play competitive chess as commonly as boys" in particular because, according to them, that is where "the social factors ordinarily discouraging girls from playing chess may be minimal". In any case, in addition to the data, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population, which is what the argument was about.
Do you have any other gripe with the paper, whose argument is broader than those four data points and which still addresses the argument that was being discussed here even if you forget about these data points?
That's the crux of the argument though, they attribute the difference between girls & boys to social factors using a graph that has no pattern, breaking the graph off at an arbitrary point, I wonder if girls had a better performance at 40%+ if they wouldn't have just gone with 40%+ .
Also they're breaking playing frequency in 2 categories: Number of games in current year: 0–9, 10–50, 51 Number of games in prior 3 years: 0–74, 75–151, 151
Makes no sense to not adjust for a variable that highly pollutes your data, after you already presented a correction for it.
While Jumperer def seems to be completely right, being decisively better at strategy games does not make man better than woman. Only nerds think logic the only mental talent, and I would concede woman COULD beat man on other areas (better intuition?)
Obviously, that man and woman might have different talents pisses feminist off in an incredibly funny way.
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
The same argument that people use saying that women have succeed in doing w/e at the top level at that industry also backfires when talking about equality of opportunities. That means that girls have those opportunities already thus all those activists shouldn't complain about equality of opportunities as some girls have already demonstrated that as long as you put your mind over it.
Anything else is just artificially created biases for sake of it.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
While we both agree on the premise of equality, feminist advocate positive intervention to promote woman in the workplace, while I consider that incredibly unfair and arbitrary (from a moral standpoint) and more harmful than beneficial (from a pragmatical point). Where do we stop? There is lots of evidence to support heightism, should short people receive benefits as well? Should we limit the amount of CEO's taller than 5 10" ?
So feminists are ok that all top figures in most fields are and will remain to be man ?
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote: I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
Science and knowledge do not care for the obvious. Though it may seem reasonable to believe that men and women are different (right?), the true question is: how different? We can either adress these questions or forever bring up weak arguments in favor of a simplistic duality between the two genders, ie. women can't drive and men are bad at multitasking.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: Nobody says anything about correlating that with intelligence. The reason we go to chess and scrable because women can enter these activities at will and compete with men. Feminists like to say that men keep women on purpose at the bottom in jobs. I argue that there is no significant outside factors holding women back based on women's and men's result in these gaming activities.
Women can enter these activities at will, but apparently don't. Why? This is the first gap in your argument.
Following this odd logical path, if results=causality, then the nation of Urugay is somehow genetically superior when it comes to soccer. Comparatively, their players perform better in average and provide more professionals than, say, South Africa. How come? Aren't south africans fond of the same game? Aren't they free to compete in the same tournaments? Are we to conclude that Urugay is home to a people that is simply better at soccer?
The missing factor that you are looking at is culture. In the case of Urugay, the immense popularity and pool of potential players, the education of children and the habits it produces among individuals.
Besides, you would probably agree with the fact that women are as free to play chess now as they were at the beginning of the XXth century, right? There was no taboo associated with the activity; and yet there are very few records of female chess masters from that time in comparison to ours. Would you argue that the gene pool has been modified since?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: So men in general are not better than women at basketball because the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
*if men in general seem better than women, we should ask ourselves why. As an example, take the phrase "white men can't jump". Why is it that black men seem better than white men in basketball? Do you believe it to be common sense or don't you think it requires a little more investigation? Is it a more popular sport among black communities? Do they have stronger abdominal muscles? Or are they simply... "superior" in handling a ball, while white men are superior at punching each other while ice-skating?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: Stats can be interpreted in many different ways. They choose to attribute it to the extreme values from a large sample rather than straight up say that men > women. That statement is probably the most flawed statement i've ever seen in a study. They are saying that they fucked up because their sample size is too large. wut? That is extremely absurd.
What is your understanding of statistics?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: In SC2 the koreans work harder than everyone else and their culture supported gaming. Thats why they are the best at video games. This is their niche and they are very good at it. They are not biologically superior because they don't dominate the whole world at anything else.
In nz scrable situation, if the women are failing because they refuse to train as much as the top men. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves. Oh wait, it could be culture and society just like south korea and sc2. I'm sure there's a hidden village somewhere in NZ isolated from the rest of the population that does nothing but play scrable all day and doesn't let women inside. So this explains why 9 out of 10 top players are men. Yes, it all make senses now.
Statistically speaking, the large pool of players is bound to produce better players. The culture also makes it acceptable and worthwhile to spend time playing Starcraft, which is not the case elsewhere. Your explanation is a little insulting to NA or EU players who do in fact play 12 hours a day, is it not? And what do you mean by "culture and society"? What is the difference between these two terms, and their link as you seem to systematically use them together?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: Well fuck, if all these world titles and all these higher average rating are meaningless. There is nothing we can do to prove that men are better at chess. I guess women are better afterall, they have all these potential ability but for some reason they can't use it!!!!!
Studies could prove this. The popularization of chess among females could also do the trick. "Observation" doesn't - when the first greeks declared the earth was round, the "observation" of their successors and their "common sense" made them believe otherwise.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: And those overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors are rooted in biology. Women were the support roles because they were good at it. Men did their part by going out to work and spending resources on women and child.
Women have their own advantages in term of biology. They are better at taking care of the young and elders. They are better at emotional supports etc.
I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality.
"Reality is reality", what do you mean by that? You do realize that this is a completely anti-scientific train of thought, right? Before vikings headed to Vinland, their peers could see "with their own eyes" that there was nothing but the sea west from England.
Besides, both men and women occupied support roles, historically speaking. Wether it's in ancient Greece, or in the Renaissance Italy, those who were "active" were the elite, the majority was made of supporting classes of second or third-grade citizens who worked the land or in the industries, men and women alike. Granted, in our culture the ruling class was composed mostly by males, but ethnology has showed us that it is not the case everywhere - see the different matriarchies that exist, ie. the Na tribe in China.
As a history major, I'm curious to hear about these "sociocultural and historical factors" though.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: you lose.
This...
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: It's society's and culture fault.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: IT'S SOCIETY'S FAULT.
...is...
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
..."unnecessary" and quite eloquent about your position in this debate.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
I do not know what makes this thread worse, the rampant sexism, or the lack scientific training/understanding of statics.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote: I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
I do not know what makes this thread worse, the rampant sexism, or the lack scientific training/understanding of statics.
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
Is it me or are people here trying to correlate chess or even Scrabble with intelligence ?
Not only is the argument astonishingly weak, but also surprising if it is supposed to come from psychological studies, which are supposed to share a strong link with other social sciences and humanities that stress the importance of cultural context.
It truly bothers me how some can ironically present such irrigorous arguments while discussing logic and cognitive capacities. Let's not mention the lack of a satisfying definition for the term "feminism" and voilà, armchair philosophy
Nobody says anything about correlating that with intelligence. The reason we go to chess and scrable because women can enter these activities at will and compete with men. Feminists like to say that men keep women on purpose at the bottom in jobs. I argue that there is no significant outside factors holding women back based on women's and men's result in these gaming activities.
The most important factor holding women back is the fact that very few of them actually compete in the activities you listed. The papers I provided show that the preponderance of men at the top in chess is exactly what would be statistically expected based on the numbers of men and women playing.
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: I didn't dodge anything - the issue of there being more men at the higher levels was extensively discussed in the previous pages and the article I cited then completely debunks the idea that it is because men are better at chess. It directly shows that statistically the ratings difference at the highest levels between men and women is exactly as you would expect it to be based on the differing sizes of the populations of men and women playing. This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
you lose. If that was the case then the level of women would stay around 6.5% at all level rather than continue to decrease.
...no it wouldn't. That's not how statistics work. The higher preponderance of members of the larger groups at the ends of the distribution (in this case, the higher end) is perfectly normal statistically. Bilalic et al. explain this extensively in the paper. Here's a quote from the introduction:
The greater the difference in size between the two groups, the greater is the difference to be expected between the top performers in the two groups. Nothing about underlying differences between the groups can be concluded from the preponderance of members of the larger group at the far ends of the distribution until one can show that this preponderance is greater than would be expected on statistical sampling grounds.
Unsurprisingly, you copy/pasted your argument from another internet post on a blog. Perhaps try to understand the issue before doing so?
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
So men in general are not better than women at basketball because the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. It's society's and culture fault.
Basketball is different from chess because of the physical abilities required. And you have to look at the amount of men at the top - in the case of chess, the study demonstrated that there were no more men than would be expected given the differences in population sizes. If there had been even more men than that, then yes, other factors would have been needed to explain the discrepancy. In this case, however, simple statistics suffice, meaning that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: They do have an explanation for it: it's the entire point of the scientific article I cited and the page you just referred to, as I just explained to you (again). This doesn't "go against feminism" - it precisely debunks an argument used by people who want to use chess rankings to support the idea of male superiority. I don't think you could have misunderstood the argument more if you tried.
"96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one"
Stats can be interpreted in many different ways. They choose to attribute it to the extreme values from a large sample rather than straight up say that men > women. That statement is probably the most flawed statement i've ever seen in a study. They are saying that they fucked up because their sample size is too large. wut? That is extremely absurd.
At what point are you going to take a step back and realize that you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about? Who the hell is saying "they fucked up because their sample size is too large"? Nobody is saying that - you just don't have the slightest understanding of what the authors wrote. They did not "choose" to attribute it to anything - they proved that the differences in ratings at the top were virtually exactly (96%) what you would statistically expect them to be based on the respective sizes of the male and female populations (the large and small samples). This finding completely debunks the argument that the ratings of men at the top mean that men are intrinsically better.
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: The articles referred to earlier directly show the impact of participation rates for the chess rankings we were discussing. This is not up for debate - Bilalic et al. mathematically demonstrate their impact in the paper cited. You took the NZ scrabble example from a random 2009 internet post - you have absolutely no idea of what other variables are at stake, with a possible influence contrary to that of participation rates. It's impossible to know without more data, which you don't have because you were only interested in copy/pasting a random post as fast as you could just so you could have something to keep defending your preconceived male superiority beliefs. To give you an example, if someone looked at SC2 results, that person would notice Korean players are a minority overall and yet completely dominate the rest of the world. According to your incredibly brilliant logic, this should lead that person to conclude that South Koreans are biologically wired in a way that makes them way better at SC2 than the rest of the world. Of course, we know that non-biological factors are at play, in particular the amount of training and the training environment. You don't know anything about the NZ scrabble situation, so this example should tell you enough about how incredibly ignorant it is to declare that the relevant variable is biology without actually investigating the issue.
In SC2 the koreans work harder than everyone else and their culture supported gaming. Thats why they are the best at video games. This is their niche and they are very good at it. They are not biologically superior because they don't dominate the whole world at anything else.
In nz scrable situation, if the women are failing because they refuse to train as much as the top men. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves. Oh wait, it could be culture and society just like south korea and sc2. I'm sure there's a hidden village somewhere in NZ isolated from the rest of the population that does nothing but play scrable all day and doesn't let women inside. So this explains why 9 out of 10 top players are men. Yes, it all make senses now.
Yes, we know why Koreans finish higher in SC2 tournaments, but that's the entire point - if we didn't know that they trained harder and lived in a favorable training environment, and if we followed your logic, we would conclude that they are biologically better than non-Koreans. We don't know anything about the NZ scrabble scene, so similar factors could be at play - you say that women should "blame themselves" if they do not train as much as men, but then this would clearly mean training would be the relevant factor and not biological differences. It also could be that most of the men come from the capital and practice more intensively in a few clubs where few women are found, it could be that more women treat it as a hobby, etc. - the point is that we simply do not know and that it is therefore nonsensical to conclude that men are biologically better than women at scrabble based on that extremely limited data.
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: Darkwhite misunderstood the study he was arguing against, as I showed extensively. As evidenced by your post, you misunderstood it completely, going as far as believing it supported your point, which is quite an achievement in not understanding something. sibs' objection to the latest study I posted is on the selection of data points for the second part of the last section, and does not concern the rest of the findings of the study or the authors' statistical explanation of the higher average ratings for men. In short, neither the preponderance of men at the top nor the higher average ratings for men can be used as arguments to support the idea that men are better at chess, for statistical reasons.
Well fuck, if all these world titles and all these higher average rating are meaningless. There is nothing we can do to prove that men are better at chess. I guess women are better afterall, they have all these potential ability but for some reason they can't use it!!!!! IT'S SOCIETY'S FAULT.
As the Bilalic study explicitly states, non-statistical factors would be needed to explain the rating differences at the top if those differences in ratings were even higher (or lower) than statistics would predict them to be based on the respective sizes of the female and male populations - but that's not the case, the differences are exactly as expected statistically. Also, nobody is saying that "women are better". All the study shows is that the particular argument of these higher male ratings cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. And let me point out that even if you had presented the slightest bit of evidence showing men to be better at chess - which you haven't -, your claim is that they are better because of biological reasons, for which you have zero evidence.
On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote: Yes, you can "believe in whatever you want". The bottom line is that you do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that men are biologically better than women at "chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc". It is your preconceived and sexist beliefs which lead you to completely reject statistical evidence and demonstrations which do not go your way. I'd love to see you defend the idea that there being more male CEOs is rooted in biology rather than overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors. What is "safe to say" is that you don't have a leg to stand on.
And those overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors are rooted in biology. Women were the support roles because they were good at it. Men did their part by going out to work and spending resources on women and child.
Women have their own advantages in term of biology. They are better at taking care of the young and elders. They are better at emotional supports etc.
I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
I gave you examples of egalitarian societies which survived perfectly fine. The "rooted in biology" part of your argument can apply to biological differences such as women giving birth and not men, but the scientific research done on cognitive differences simply does not support the idea that "biology" explains the huge differences in gender roles in our societies. Sociocultural and historical factors are the overwhelming reason behind such differences, as is well recognized by scientists. Nobody is "theorycrafting" - you're not seeing reality, you're seeing your own version of reality through sexist goggles which refuse to take into account evidence contradicting your view.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is methodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. It also appears to be the only in a great many studies that come to such a conclusion.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Entries solely devoted to discrediting the Bilalic et al. article:
Knapp, Michael. "Are participation rates sufficient to explain gender differences in chess performance?." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1692 (2010): 2269.
Glickman, Mark E., Christopher F. Chabris, and Bedford Excellence. "Comparing Extreme Members is a Low-Power Method of Comparing Groups: An Example Using Sex Differences in Chess Performance."
On April 15 2014 11:13 sibs wrote: That's the crux of the argument though, they attribute the difference between girls & boys to social factors using a graph that has no pattern, breaking the graph off at an arbitrary point, I wonder if girls had a better performance at 40%+ if they wouldn't have just gone with 40%+ .
No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post
On April 15 2014 11:13 sibs wrote: Also they're breaking playing frequency in 2 categories: Number of games in current year: 0–9, 10–50, 51 Number of games in prior 3 years: 0–74, 75–151, 151
Makes no sense to not adjust for a variable that highly pollutes your data, after you already presented a correction for it.
What would make no sense would be to suddenly adjust for a variable without presenting the non-adjusted data and without stating which variable was taken into account, contrary to what they did in the entirety of the rest of the paper. Each time they controlled for/took into account a variable, they explicitly stated so, including in the "sex differences in initial ratings" section, in which they explicitly provided a second, age-adjusted, result, twice. Nowhere do the authors say the first results were adjusted for frequency of play without age. There is nothing that indicates that the frequency of play "highly pollutes the data" for the specific sample under study in that section, because "the data used in that specific sample consisted in different sets of players each year - those who "had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one". Accounting for variables like "playing time in the three previous years", taken into account for previous samples, therefore seems a lot less relevant". Nothing indicates that the number of games in the current year would have "polluted" the data for that specific sample in a significant way either. The authors clearly did not adjust for that variable, otherwise they would have stated so.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results.
I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote: I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
I'm not sure why you're using "anymore", since I've presented my position quite clearly from the start and haven't changed it one bit.
1. As decades of scientific research have shown, the biological differences in cognition which exist between men and women are very small, concern limited domains, and are often impossible to distinguish from the influence of sociocultural factors. For several areas in which it was initially thought that men had a natural advantage (for example, mathematics), cultural factors have been shown to play the decisive role, leading to women performing just as well as men when these cultural factors stopped working against them. There is no real evidence to support the claim that structurally different career choices between men and women boil down to biological differences between the two. To quote the website of the American Psychological Associtation:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think. [...]
The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college.
2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other.
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote: I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other.
I would agree with this assessment for the most part. However I find it difficult to seperate psychological and sociocultural factors from the biological. Moving away from cognitive ability, it is not clear how much of behavior come from some sort of biological wiring, and how much is a pure social contruct.
I would think our concept of gender in many aspects comes from biology, not just that we are born sexually dimorphic, but also that this a significant part of our lives. I don't know how else to explain transgender people, some part of their biology must be telling them that they are a specific gender. I don't know how much of our concept of gender is a socio-cultural construct. Boys being dressed in blue and girls in pink is certainly arbitrary, but perhaps not the notion that they should be dressed differently.
When it comes to behavior I am also unsure, we know that women are more risk-averse compared to men, something which could easily have an origin in the evolutionary environment of our ancestors. It is also not difficult to see how risk aversity may influence the dsitribution of outcomes. More risk aversity means more of a tendency towards mediocrity, more risky behavior a tendency towards extreme outcomes. It is not clear that in a theoretical equal opportunity world, where gender exists, but there are no gender based biases whatsoever, would lead to equal distribution for the genders in all competitive environments.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results.
I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings.
My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM.
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote: I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
2. Chess rankings can hardly be used for evidence of men being biologically better than women at the activity, because of the magnitude and impact of differing participation rates and of psychological and sociocultural factors which contribute to shaping how men and women approach the game and compete against each other.
I would agree with this assessment for the most part. However I find it difficult to seperate psychological and sociocultural factors from the biological. Moving away from cognitive ability, it is not clear how much of behavior come from some sort of biological wiring, and how much is a pure social contruct.
I would think our concept of gender in many aspects comes from biology, not just that we are born sexually dimorphic, but also that this a significant part of our lives. I don't know how else to explain transgender people, some part of their biology must be telling them that they are a specific gender. I don't know how much of our concept of gender is a socio-cultural construct. Boys being dressed in blue and girls in pink is certainly arbitrary, but perhaps not the notion that they should be dressed differently.
When it comes to behavior I am also unsure, we know that women are more risk-averse compared to men, something which could easily have an origin in the evolutionary environment of our ancestors. It is also not difficult to see how risk aversity may influence the dsitribution of outcomes. More risk aversity means more of a tendency towards mediocrity, more risky behavior a tendency towards extreme outcomes. It is not clear that in a theoretical equal opportunity world, where gender exists, but there are no gender based biases whatsoever, would lead to equal distribution for the genders in all competitive environments.
If you want a good overview of the scientific literature on the topic of the roles of culture and biology, I advise reading Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010) [also: Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (8th edition, 2013) by Janet Hyde]. I mentioned it earlier in the thread - it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. These initial differences can also very much be changed through the flexibility our brain exhibits in its development (thus pointing to the importance of sociocultural factors), which includes an impact on the type of behavior exhibited.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results.
I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings.
My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM.
I think we can atleast agree that the Bilalic paper is anomalous and highly questionable, and certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject. I think we can also agree that participation rates are very important, for both statistical and socio-cultural reasons. My comments were meant to dispute the notion that the Bilalic paper has solved the performance gap almost entirely through participation rates, not to take an extreme opposite stance. In light of the available literature perhaps we can all agree that:
- Women underperform compared to men in Chess even when adjusted for participation rates - There is evidence for psychological socio-cultural factors' - Because the exent to which these factors can explain the gap is unknown, there is some room for speculation about minor differences in innate ability. - Women should not be discouraged from playing chess
No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post
It's the crux of the argument, the difference between male and female chess performance arises somewhere, if there's a difference there's a reason for such difference or are you now denying there's a difference of performance between the sexes? They try to attribute the difference to ... using a graph.... well yea.
About the "Why are (the best) women so good at chess?"
(2009). The unexplained gap between the two curves varies between 99 and 170 rating points (mean value over 100 pairs: 124.5). If two players with a rating difference of 124.5 points compete in a match over 100 games, the expected result is 67 : 33 in favour of the higher rated player. Therefore, the conclusion of Bilalic´ et al. (2009) that ‘there is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for’, appears to be premature. I am grateful to Karen Hirschmann for pointing my attention to the work of Bilalic´ et al. (2009).
No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post
It's the crux of the argument, the difference between male and female chess performance arises somewhere, if there's a difference there's a reason for such difference or are you now denying there's a difference of performance between the sexes? They try to attribute the difference to ... using a graph.... well yea.
The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene). The four data points are studied later as an example of cases where participation rates were the same, and there is no gap between the two.
On April 16 2014 03:47 sibs wrote: About the "Why are (the best) women so good at chess?"
(2009). The unexplained gap between the two curves varies between 99 and 170 rating points (mean value over 100 pairs: 124.5). If two players with a rating difference of 124.5 points compete in a match over 100 games, the expected result is 67 : 33 in favour of the higher rated player. Therefore, the conclusion of Bilalic´ et al. (2009) that ‘there is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for’, appears to be premature. I am grateful to Karen Hirschmann for pointing my attention to the work of Bilalic´ et al. (2009).
Helps when you use a proper model.
The article by Bilalic is a different article and I just addressed that reply from Knapp a few posts ago so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again. Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates.
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote: There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is metodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Different methodologies do not imply methodological flaws for the article, and the criticism I found in an article which answered the one by Bilalic et al. was based on absolute ratings predicted by the model used, which fails to address that they were interested in expected differences and not in absolute ratings. I also cited other articles supporting the weight of the participation rate and the type of conclusions of Bilalic et al.. I cannot access your article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send it to me. From what I can read of the abstract, however, the author seems to fail to take into account the very sociocultural and psychological factors you correctly mentioned when drawing his conclusions, which isn't a very good indicator of the rigor of his approach.
Dude, the article has been cited 8 times and 4 of those citations the authors make a point out of how bad their methodology is, they are getting completely trashed in academic terms. The remaining articles mention it in passing and do not refer to the results.
I could download the pdfs for you and send you some of the articles if you like. PM me an email adress or something.
If you're looking at the statistics on google scholar, other articles on the same topic do not get cited much more, and the conclusions of Bilalić are not generally getting "trashed". Chabris and Glickman, for example, do criticize the methodology used by Bilalić but they emphasize the impact of participation rates in their own article on the topic. Knapp, whose article I referred to earlier, reaches the conclusion that 66.9% (mean value) of rating differences are explained by differing participation rates, which still highlights their importance. I had another article placing that value at 83% but I can't find it anymore (I'll edit this if I do). In addition, previous findings of the author of the article you cited, Howard, have also been criticized on methodological grounds (his 2005 article on the issue). His statements on differing drop-out rates are also inconsistent with what Chabris and Glickman found in their 2006 article on U.S. chess players which I cited earlier in the thread. Basically, I'd say caution is very much required, but I think we can agree on the combined importance of participation rates and psychological/sociocultural factors to explain differences in ratings.
My university gives me access to the articles except for the latest one by Howard, so yes I'll appreciate it if you can send that one to me. I'll send you my e-mail via PM.
I think we can atleast agree that the Bilalic paper is anomalous and highly questionable, and certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject. I think we can also agree that participation rates are very important, for both statistical and socio-cultural reasons. My comments were meant to dispute the notion that the Bilalic paper has solved the performance gap almost entirely through participation rates, not to take an extreme opposite stance. In light of the available literature perhaps we can all agree that:
- Women underperform compared to men in Chess even when adjusted for participation rates - There is evidence for psychological socio-cultural factors' - Because the exent to which these factors can explain the gap is unknown, there is some room for speculation about minor differences in innate ability. - Women should not be discouraged from playing chess
I agree that it is certainly not the authoritative final word on the subject, but I disagree with calling it anomalous - it is one measure of the importance of the impact of participation rates among several studies stressing their impact, to various (still important) degrees. I would also add: - So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of there being biological differences playing a role.
The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene).
Can you point it out to me?
Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates.
The model isn't correct, 96% to 66% is a large difference.
The crux of the argument is stated in the second paragraph of the section, in which they mention the fact that it is statistically unsurprising to see a higher average rating for males in competitions due to population sizes and the fact that there is a "cutoff" (entering the competitive scene).
Can you point it out to me?
What follows "If in the general population [...]".
Like I said, the model used by Bilalic serves to address differences in ratings and not absolute ratings - the use of a normal distribution for the ratings is debatable, but even with his method Knapp still reaches the conclusion that more than 2/3rds of the differences are explained by participation rates.
The model isn't correct, 96% to 66% is a large difference.
Two different assumptions. Also, 67% still means a major impact of participation rates.
By the way, what is your position in this broader discussion? Do you agree with Jumperer that men are biologically better than women at working jobs which earn substantial income, and that women's "rightful place" is to support the men?
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
My question, then, is by what standard will you judge whether men and women have equal opportunity in society?
Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric.
On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote: Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think...
On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote: Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think...
It isn't limited to that, but even if it were you'd have a basis for saying the sexes are more different than are races. We each stew in different hormones, have different maturation times, and some differing brain morphology. While the full extent of the difference is under contention, the matter of difference is a matter of fact. I don't see why pointing out what's perfectly obvious has to be such a radical act, acknowledging difference has nothing to do with forcing people into sex roles or deciding who is better, it's merely acknowledging difference. Trying to put words in my mouth about Aryans and non-Aryans is totally ridiculous.
On June 07 2014 12:54 Jaaaaasper wrote: All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric.
Give me a break. This is a distinction without a practical significance.
On June 07 2014 12:12 sevencck wrote: Are you guys on drugs? First of all accusing people of being a Nazi without answering their argument is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness, but more to the point, changing the words around wouldn't meaningfully compare to being a Nazi. Golly, I can even think of reasons.
1) I actually said in my original post that I think different races are close enough to be considered identical groups -- not really a Nazi.
2) The Nazis certainly don't have a monopoly on the belief that men and women are different in numerous ways, in fact there have been studies published (even in Nature, those dastardly Nazis) that demonstrate this fact.
3) Claiming races are different isn't the same as claiming men and women are different. That men and women are different is a trivial statement, the only contentious part of it lies in what extent we take it to.
4) I'm not advocating we take away anyone's rights or gas anyone.
5) I'm not saying one is superior, only that they're different.
Seriously, why not make an argument instead of calling people Nazis. To quote farvacola from his US Politics thread,
"here are a number of thread guidelines I've devised with expedient and efficient dialogue in mind. Many of these sound similar; however, I've found that when it comes to nurturing effective communication, one cannot be redundant enough."
You seem to be taking it for granted that differences based on sex are more significant than differences based on race. Why is that? Men and women have different sex organs of course, but women don't use their vaginas to solve math problems. I think...
It isn't limited to that, but even if it were you'd have a basis for saying the sexes are more different than are races. We each stew in different hormones, have different maturation times, and some differing brain morphology. While the full extent of the difference is under contention, the matter of difference is a matter of fact. I don't see why pointing out what's perfectly obvious has to be such a radical act, acknowledging difference has nothing to do with forcing people into sex roles or deciding who is better, it's merely acknowledging difference. Trying to put words in my mouth about Aryans and non-Aryans is totally ridiculous.
On June 07 2014 12:54 Jaaaaasper wrote: All we were stating was that the wording was very similar. No where did we excuse you of being a nazi, we just stated that changing the nouns would fit perfectly into nazi rhetoric.
Give me a break. This is a distinction without a practical significance.
For the record, I wasn't the one making the Nazi comparison. I'll grant that the matter of difference is fact, but not that the difference is significant. I'm not an expert on this field, but as far as I know studies that have attempted to look into this have been inconclusive.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
Playing the devils advocate here: How can you establish that a predictor is causative of the outcome when you have a variable which influences both the predictor and the outcome by an unknown factor which is ENTIRELY ignored? Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
"Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Outside of close family, there are biologically different peples with much more similar cultural norms. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
3) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
4) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
That's quite a hard question to answer either way. It's the old fallacious Nature vs Nurture chestnut. The point that two biologically similar people can embrace very different cultural norms is a great one, but it isn't the end of the story, or evidence that biology's effects are necessarily very small. The same biological makeup can manifest in very different ways depending on the environment, especially the social environment. Where I strongly agree with the feminist POV is that the contribution of biology can't really be ascertained in the unequal environment that modern culture provides, there's too much systemic bias.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
It is because you do not get that our biology is the "foundation" of our culture and certain things are consitant in every culture that is bigger than three huts in the middle of nowhere. You just have a wrong idea what culture and what biology means.
Just because every culture has arbitrary habits doesnt mean every habit and costum is therefore arbitrary and isolated from biology.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Outside of close family, there are biologically different peples with much more similar cultural norms. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
3) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
4) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
That's quite a hard question to answer either way. It's the old fallacious Nature vs Nurture chestnut. The point that two biologically similar people can embrace very different cultural norms is a great one, but it isn't the end of the story, or evidence that biology's effects are necessarily very small. The same biological makeup can manifest in very different ways depending on the environment, especially the social environment. Where I strongly agree with the feminist POV is that the contribution of biology can't really be ascertained in the unequal environment that modern culture provides, there's too much systemic bias.
1) Social environment is part of culture. When genetically idetical twins brought up togeher can have different cultures and people who never met each other on the other side of the world can have similar cultures, it is very hard to argue for that biology affect human culture. It literally makes no sense. Broadly speaking, there is a general human culture; people tend to eat together and excrete waste away from their homes, but for specific culture, you will have to make an argument how biology does indeed affect culture instead of merely positing that it does.
2) I editted my post to add a bit more before you posted this. I don't know what this specific feminism stuff is about. A question was asked, and it was answered. Feminism or counterfeminism or whatever this thread is about has nothing to do with it. I have not invested in whatever the topic is about, only his question.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
It is because you do not get that our biology is the "foundation" of our culture and certain things are consitant in every culture that is bigger than three huts in the middle of nowhere. You just have a wrong idea what culture and what biology means.
Just because every culture has arbitrary habits doesnt mean every habit and costum is therefore arbitrary and isolated from biology.
Ok, you seem really into this for some reason, so tell me. What culture is biologically defined? And how does this relate to whatever. because you seem to be arguing for something, but you are also trying to skirt round what it is. So if you have an argument to make, make it.
Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question.
On June 07 2014 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
Assuming biology as anologous to genetics then:
1) When there are different cultural norms, and you are arguing that cultural norms spring from biology, then you are arguing that different groups have different biology. Since different cultural norms are apparent even within the same family of people, you would then be arguing that small changes in biology of a person causes change drastic cultural norms.
2) Humanity is a species. They are not genetically divergent. Other species just as genetically divergent as humans exhibit similar social behaviours to one another. Humans exhibit broadly different social behaviours.
3) There are biologically different peoples with much more similar cultural norms than peoples of much more similar biology. If 2 people closely related can have vastly differing cultural norms and 2 people unrelated with similar cultural norms, then it is apparent that culture is not dictated by biology.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
5) The definition of culture mostly precludes biological instincts. They would be classified as biological instincts not culture, which are generally defined as the knowledge and behaviours which are passed from generation to generation, whilst instincts are not.
___
Btw, I haven't read this thread, but you asked a question so here's enough reasons to why that argument is an invalid course of argument.
It seems to me you are treating causal relationships very neatly and deductively and showing they can't exist, when the other person is saying the exact reason we don't understand these relationships is they're so complicated and these different concepts are so interdigitated that even if you find correlations it's hard to find neatly presentable causal mechanisms.
For instance you said culture changes at a rate too fast to be determined by biology as biological evolution isn't working at the same rate. Your logic is similar to me saying it gets hot in the day and cold at night so your theory that the weather is influenced by where the axis of the Earth is pointing in relation to the sun is wrong because the temperature changes too fast. Ignoring other factors at work and then demanding that one factor explain everything and then lambasting it when it fails doesn't mean it's not a factor, right? nobody is saying biology is singly the cause of everything that falls under the purview of social sciences.
I mean, culture has its own forces of change or evolution obviously? That doesn't mean biology isn't relevant? I mean what you're saying would be like: Science has learned too much too fast in the last 400 years, we went from the first airplane to landing on the moon in 70 years, so obviously biology isn't responsible for our intelligence because that progress is too fast to be accounted for by genetics. This doesn't make sense right?
Also biology and genetics don't work the way you describe. Different genetics can come up with the same phenotype. For instance, the eye evolved independently like 60 times in nature. Also, if you look at a pile of mussels, it's impossible to distinguish the various species of them (that one is from QI). You seem to be looking at it (a priori) like biology and culture can be shown to mirror each other exactly, like there would be a USSR gene and a capitalism gene and a fascism gene and the Irish potato famine happened because potatoes contain diligence hormones and when the Irish people had no potatoes to eat they stopped working and all died from laziness or something. Of course that's ridiculous.
To be fair I don't know exactly what he meant by "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology?" because "spring from" is so vague but I assume "spring from" wasn't supposed to mean "totally and only determined by."
oh he's smarter than me and said it better
On June 08 2014 00:09 Ghostcom wrote: you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
On June 08 2014 00:04 Sokrates wrote: Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few.
Yes, they exist. None of those exist in the same form. All of these cultural forms differ from culture to culure. To argue that they are spring from biology (whatever that means) would be to argue that they would be uniform across all of human culture. I did say there is a general human culture. Oh and half of those are emotions, not culture. What exactly are you arguing for? I reply to his question, you seem to be arguing for soemthing, but yet again left it.
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question.
A lot of words, but nothing meaningful is how exactly how I would describe what you have just written.
You asked "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
You had a question and it is answered. If you think the asnwers are irrelevent to your question, then you should ask the question you wanted to ask, not a question you didn't want answered.
There is an awful lot of hidden subtext, but the question itself is simple. The problem is as Sokrates (ironic name!), you simply don't want to go and assert whatever argument you want to make.
On June 08 2014 00:04 Sokrates wrote: Language, sex, music, jealousy, greed, hate, love, anger, hatred, laughter, playing games, entertainment, love for symmetry, punishment for misbehaving, socialising, family etc, rules, form of governing, distinction between men and women, men and women having different roles, belief in a higher power, incest taboo.
That are things that are almost always existing in every culture. Just to name a few.
Yes, they exist. None of those exist in the same form. All of these cultural forms differ from culture to culure. To argue that they are spring from biology (whatever that means) would be to argue that they would be uniform across all of human culture. I did say there is a general human culture. Oh and half of those are emotions, not culture. What exactly are you arguing for? I reply to his question, you seem to be arguing for soemthing, but yet again left it.
Because that is what you do not understand. They dont have to be exactly the same, what is important to know is the "fundamental basis". One culture will prefer a different game than the other but what they have in common is that every culture enjoys playing games. If you dont know what i m arguing about you should read the thread.
Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. I was talking about the difference between male and female biology (which is of course due to genetics (XX vs XY), however not in the way you interpreted it - as genetics on an individual level - which alone invalidates most of your points as they are simply not relevant).
Furthermore you commit the very same fault that I was criticizing - you disregard all covariates and assume a singular causal relationship - which is rather naïve if not straight up ignorant when talking about nature vs nurture.
Also, I am really interested in your definition of culture which precludes biological instincts. I am pretty sure that for example customs are part of a culture - and some customs do spring from biology, a historical example could be the male provider.
You have really provided zero conclusive answers to the question.
A lot of words, but nothing meaningful is how exactly how I would describe what you have just written.
You asked "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
You had a question and it is answered. If you think the asnwers are irrelevent to your question, then you should ask the question you wanted to ask, not a question you didn't want answered.
There is an awful lot of hidden subtext, but the question itself is simple. The problem is as Sokrates (ironic name!), you simply don't want to go and assert whatever argument you want to make.
Look you have to make a difference between every cultural norm is existing without biology or SOME cultural norms are free from biology. Feminists believe that everything is just a matter of culture and biology doesnt have an impact. And that is why you should read the thread and you would know what we are arguing about.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote: It seems to me you are treating causal relationships very neatly and deductively and showing they can't exist, when the other person is saying the exact reason we don't understand these relationships is they're so complicated and these different concepts are so interdigitated that even if you find correlations it's hard to find neatly presentable causal mechanisms.
He said no such thing. He had a question and it was answered. Only that it wasn't the question he wanted to ask. perhaps you can tell me what he wanted to ask instead.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:For instance you said culture changes at a rate too fast to be determined by biology as biological evolution isn't working at the same rate.
I said no such thing.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:Your logic is similar to me saying it gets hot in the day and cold at night so your theory that the weather is influenced by where the axis of the Earth is pointing in relation to the sun is wrong because the temperature changes too fast. Ignoring other factors at work and then demanding that one factor explain everything and then lambasting it when it fails doesn't mean it's not a factor, right? nobody is saying biology is singly the cause of everything that falls under the purview of social sciences.
What exactly has this got to do with "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial? "
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:[/BI mean, culture has its own forces of change or evolution obviously? That doesn't mean biology isn't relevant?
When did I say biology is irrelevent to forces of change or evolution?
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:I mean what you're saying would be like: Science has learned too much too fast in the last 400 years, we went from the first airplane to landing on the moon in 70 years, so obviously biology isn't responsible for our intelligence because that progress is too fast to be accounted for by genetics. This doesn't make sense right?
Yes it doesn't make sense, because you have equated science directly as a function of intelligence. But cultures change. If cultures change and "cultures spring from biology", what has changed in that biology in order for that statement to be true?
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:Also biology and genetics don't work the way you describe. Different genetics can come up with the same phenotype. For instance, the eye evolved independently like 60 times in nature. Also, if you look at a pile of mussels, it's impossible to distinguish the various species of them (that one is from QI). You seem to be looking at it (a priori) like biology and culture can be shown to mirror each other exactly, like there would be a USSR gene and a capitalism gene and a fascism gene and the Irish potato famine happened because potatoes contain diligence hormones and when the Irish people had no potatoes to eat they stopped working and all died from laziness or something. Of course that's ridiculous.
Yes exactly. Therefore cultural norms do not spring from biology.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:To be fair I don't know exactly what he meant by "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology?" because "spring from" is so vague but I assume "spring from" wasn't supposed to mean "totally and only determined by."
[B]On June 08 2014 00:32 Ghostcom wrote: Well this is awkward, because I was going to say that oBlade was smarter than me and explained it better. You hit the nail right on the head.
Yes funny that. If he doesn't mean "totally and only determined by", then that's up to him, but he bizzarely agrees with you that he has no idea what question he wants to ask, only that he disagrees. So I guess in the end, Ghostcom has no idea how to ask the question he wants to ask. And neither of us knows either.
Am I getting trolled here? You haven't even read the thread, heck you haven't even read the very post that spurred you to reply to this thread... If you had it would tell you that your assumption that I meant biology was the single causative factor for culture is wrong. And you complain that there is a lack of context?!
EDIT: "Spring from" was purposefully vague. As I wrote in my initial post we have no idea how big an impact biology plays, thus I didn't specify it further than that.
EDIT2: I'm actually convinced I'm getting trolled here, so I'll leave this thread for tonight.
Well, the two of us aren't sure what your question meant, and you declined to explain, so you leave the thread. Makes perfect sense. So by "playing devil's advocate", what you really meant was, to ask a rhetorical question presumably lol.
On June 08 2014 02:05 Ghostcom wrote: I'm pretty sure oBlade understands my question. Same for Socrates. You are the special flower here.
Mmm, yes he sure does.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote: To be fair I don't know exactly what he meant by "Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology?" because "spring from" is so vague but I assume "spring from" wasn't supposed to mean "totally and only determined by."
On June 08 2014 01:53 Ghostcom wrote: EDIT2: I'm actually convinced I'm getting trolled here, so I'll leave this thread for tonight.
You know, it doesn't quite work to act all hurt and indignant, that you are getting trolled and going to leave, only to reread the thread and reply straight afterwards.
What I mean is although I don't totally know the scope of his question, I suspect your interpretation of his question was wrong because the answer is too obvious and it would make him look like an idiot.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:For instance you said culture changes at a rate too fast to be determined by biology as biological evolution isn't working at the same rate.
I said no such thing.
I don't mean to misrepresent you.
4) The culture of a group of people, a region, a country changes over time. You are now arguing that that group of people are having the biology changing.
That's basically what you said. Although cultures change, it's way too fast compared to evolution so it can't be explained biologically.
On June 08 2014 00:11 oBlade wrote:I mean what you're saying would be like: Science has learned too much too fast in the last 400 years, we went from the first airplane to landing on the moon in 70 years, so obviously biology isn't responsible for our intelligence because that progress is too fast to be accounted for by genetics. This doesn't make sense right?
Yes it doesn't make sense, because you have equated science directly as a function of intelligence. But cultures change. If cultures change and "cultures spring from biology", what has changed in that biology in order for that statement to be true?
That's the force of the analogy. Other animals don't have science, but we do, because we're intelligent, and that intelligence comes from our genes. Science has progressed quite rapidly in a few hundred years. That's faster than evolution works on humans. Does science changing fast suddenly mean biology isn't a factor in our intelligence? The same is true of culture. We're not much different than 100 years ago but our culture is. It still comes from biology though.
I can offer other analogies; I sprang from my father's testicles. Though I've changed quite a bit since then, that doesn't necessitate a corresponding change in my father's testicles.
Obviously there is a semantic inconsistency here where you think "spring from" means something very strong like biology is the sole causative factor, so you disagree, whereas Ghostcom and I think "spring from" means something weaker like biology is a necessary cause, or a contributing factor, or the origin, so we agree.
Well, he said he was playing devil's advocate. Which implies that he would bother to express himself clearly. But he appears incapable of doing so, even when acknowledging his own lack of clarity. So it's clear that he isn't taking devils advocate, but just plain advocacy but without any degree of reasoning. Why is Ghostcom being dishonest? That's up to him to answer. For me "spring from" would mean to cause or originate from", but ghostcom did say he was being deliberatly vague" so he can twist and tun his question to whatever he wants it to mean so it's a question without meaning.
You equated intelligence to advancements in science. Surely advancements in science is a part of culture. Cultural knowledge to be exact. We aren't any/negligibly more intelligent to humans 70 years ago.
Our biology has not changed in the last 70 years, but our cultures have and are changing. So I am not sure what your point is, except to agree with the broad point that culture does not spring from biology, unless you truly are arguing that we have become so intelligent that we are instinctively more intelligent than our immediate predecessors and as a result there is our advancements in technology and science.
Anyhow I will respond to "I'm asking whether you think biology is a factor relevant to culture."
I think that isn't the question you want to be asking. But I'll bite. Taking biology to be the physiology and behaviours of a living organism then without certain biology, there is no consciousness, no method to transfer culture. You talk about animals and intelligence, so I feel free to talk about animals as related to the question. Ignoring the behavioural aspect, otherwise the question will become rather circular. Without consciousness, there is no culture. Or in other words, the vast majority of lifeforms do not have a culture. Therefore having certain biological chracteristics is vital to culture.
Of course that be should be so obvious (hopefully), so what exactly is your question? I would presume you mean the physiology and behaviours of different cultures of humanity.
Which would include all the differing culture of humanity throughout the whole of human history. Which includes a huge and varied differences and similarities of all of these cultures. Which I would presume that you are somehow arguing that are dependent on biology. It seems obvious that any cultural difference between humans would not be due to differences between the biology of each culture, be it the culture of a country, ethnic group or otherwise.
So, what exactly are you trying to argue, because it seems fairly obvious that if you are going to ask a question, the question is going to be:
"How exactly CAN differences in human culture be affected by the differences in human physiology?
Fuzz? Why ar you being angry for no reason? You are against feminism I get that. But that is that and this is this.
Ghostcom basically said his question is deliberately vague, so there really isn't any reason to reply to him, since he doesn't have a point to make or an opinon he wants to expose.
But since you seem to be affronted by the idea that people should make sense when they type, lets take a look at you shall we?
On June 08 2014 00:56 Sokrates wrote:
Because that is what you do not understand. They dont have to be exactly the same, what is important to know is the "fundamental basis". One culture will prefer a different game than the other but what they have in common is that every culture enjoys playing games. If you dont know what i m arguing about you should read the thread.
Yes and...? Are you going to follow up on this? How is this related to anything? There is a broad human culture. Which I have already said exists. Though somewhere there is probably a culture somewhere humans defecate into their own homes and eat alone. But the real question is this relates to differences in culture being caused by biology how?
Look you have to make a difference between every cultural norm is existing without biology or SOME cultural norms are free from biology. Feminists believe that everything is just a matter of culture and biology doesnt have an impact. And that is why you should read the thread and you would know what we are arguing about.
See, now I see where you are coming from. You don't know, or care about the question being asked.
You are talking about a totally different question from the one ghostcom is asking. Of course ghostcom afterwards says he doesn't mean anything at all in his question, precisely then his question can imply anything he wants. So I will discuss with oblades who you can actually have a conversation with instead.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
Playing the devils advocate here: How can you establish that a predictor is causative of the outcome when you have a variable which influences both the predictor and the outcome by an unknown factor which is ENTIRELY ignored? Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
I'm not sure what you mean by "spring from" and which cultural norms you're referring to. As Dangermousecatdog said, there are some obvious links between biology and cultural norms - you need our biological selves for norms to exist in the first place, and if we were hermaphrodites chances are that some of our sex-related cultural norms would be very different :-) In any case, if you're playing Devil's advocate for sevencck, I'm under the impression that you didn't read his post properly. Let's quote part of it again:
On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote: If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling [...].
Let's put aside his assertion that men and women are "not the same in their interests, and talents, and proclivities" (as if culture played no role in shaping them) and focus instead on his argument that we have "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all", that it is "impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces", and that we cannot make an argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women unless we rule out the slightest biological difference.
Do you agree with me that religious extremism is a social force? If so, and since you will surely agree with me that religious extremism has an impact on the respective opportunities of men and women in plenty of regions/countries (for example because it can lead to preventing women from having access to equal education and certain jobs), you disagree, like me, with sevencck's statements. And that's just one example among millions. Again, extensive work has been done in the social sciences with regards to the impact of culture on the role of women in human societies. Sure, some cultural norms/stereotypes originally stem from differences in biology - for example, the fact that women give birth is undoubtedly linked to norms pertaining to taking care of babies. It is ludicrous to assert, however, that it is "impossible" to conclude that social forces play a direct role in disparities between men and women.
I'd like to add that if you'd like to discuss the respective impacts of nature and culture, I've already said all I have to say on the matter earlier in the thread and I'm not interested in starting the debate again (particularly from scratch). I was specifically replying to sevencck's argument that we cannot establish that social forces play a role and that there is therefore no reason to address social norms. Even allowing women to have access to education is addressing a social norm.
On June 08 2014 07:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Fuzz? Why ar you being angry for no reason? You are against feminism I get that. But that is that and this is this.
Ghostcom basically said his question is deliberately vague, so there really isn't any reason to reply to him, since he doesn't have a point to make or an opinon he wants to expose.
But since you seem to be affronted by the idea that people should make sense when they type, lets take a look at you shall we?
Because that is what you do not understand. They dont have to be exactly the same, what is important to know is the "fundamental basis". One culture will prefer a different game than the other but what they have in common is that every culture enjoys playing games. If you dont know what i m arguing about you should read the thread.
Yes and...? Are you going to follow up on this? How is this related to anything? There is a broad human culture. Which I have already said exists. Though somewhere there is probably a culture somewhere humans defecate into their own homes and eat alone. But the real question is this relates to differences in culture being caused by biology how?
Look you have to make a difference between every cultural norm is existing without biology or SOME cultural norms are free from biology. Feminists believe that everything is just a matter of culture and biology doesnt have an impact. And that is why you should read the thread and you would know what we are arguing about.
See, now I see where you are coming from. You don't know, or care about the question being asked.
You are talking about a totally different question from the one ghostcom is asking. Of course ghostcom afterwards says he doesn't mean anything at all in his question, precisely then his question can imply anything he wants. So I will discuss with oblades who you can actually have a conversation with instead.
I m angry because you didnt get the context and then you nitpick at the phrasing of the question. Nothing more nothing less. That is why i understood him and you didnt. You also felt the need to flame me for my nick besides calling yourself Dangermousecatdog...
Sokrates, rather than trying to shit on me for actually bothering to answer his question, why don't you tell me exactly what he meant to ask? You proffess understand Ghostcom, despite professing not to understand what he himself was asking, so go ahead. Tell me exactly what he wanted to ask as a devils advocate. You are the one who is really obsessed over the semantics of his question. It doesn't matter one way or another what he meant to ask, because as you can see, I have happily answered OBlade. He is reasonably polite and is able to construct a logical argument. You on the other hand...
What i think he wanted to ask was why we do not turn around the whole discussion and assume that every cultural norm is based on biology and just exclude possible artificial social factors and apply the same mind gymnastics like the feminists do.
The point is that you have two factors and excluding either of them by "definition" is retarded. Gender studies postulates there are no innate biological differences between men and women and therefore every difference you find has to be social. This also implies that you just have to change society and challange every different outcome because these differences are created by society and not by nature itself, not even taking into account that nature has any effect at all.
On June 08 2014 09:49 Sokrates wrote: What i think he wanted to ask was why we do not turn around the whole discussion and assume that every cultural norm is based on biology and just exclude possible artificial social factors and apply the same mind gymnastics like the feminists do.
The point is that you have two factors and excluding either of them by "definition" is retarded. Gender studies postulates there are no innate biological differences between men and women and therefore every difference you find has to be social. This also implies that you just have to change society and challange every different outcome because these differences are created by society and not by nature itself, not even taking into account that nature has any effect at all.
Precisely. With no ability to control for or isolate either, I don't see how conclusions can be drawn with such certainty. It's essentially a conclusion that is on the leash of ideology. If you believe that biology plays no important factor in the behavior and choices of men and women, then naturally it follows to conclude that differences are a consequence of society. But once you accept that biology plays a role, however small, I don't see how drawing such conclusions is possible anymore.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
Playing the devils advocate here: How can you establish that a predictor is causative of the outcome when you have a variable which influences both the predictor and the outcome by an unknown factor which is ENTIRELY ignored? Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
I'm not sure what you mean by "spring from" and which cultural norms you're referring to. As Dangermousecatdog said, there are some obvious links between biology and cultural norms - you need our biological selves for norms to exist in the first place, and if we were hermaphrodites chances are that some of our sex-related cultural norms would be very different :-) In any case, if you're playing Devil's advocate for sevencck, I'm under the impression that you didn't read his post properly. Let's quote part of it again:
On June 07 2014 07:59 sevencck wrote: If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling [...].
Let's put aside his assertion that men and women are "not the same in their interests, and talents, and proclivities" (as if culture played no role in shaping them) and focus instead on his argument that we have "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all", that it is "impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces", and that we cannot make an argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women unless we rule out the slightest biological difference.
Do you agree with me that religious extremism is a social force? If so, and since you will surely agree with me that religious extremism has an impact on the respective opportunities of men and women in plenty of regions/countries (for example because it can lead to preventing women from having access to equal education and certain jobs), you disagree, like me, with sevencck's statements. And that's just one example among millions. Again, extensive work has been done in the social sciences with regards to the impact of culture on the role of women in human societies. Sure, some cultural norms/stereotypes originally stem from differences in biology - for example, the fact that women give birth is undoubtedly linked to norms pertaining to taking care of babies. It is ludicrous to assert, however, that it is "impossible" to conclude that social forces play a direct role in disparities between men and women.
I'd like to add that if you'd like to discuss the respective impacts of nature and culture, I've already said all I have to say on the matter earlier in the thread and I'm not interested in starting the debate again (particularly from scratch). I was specifically replying to sevencck's argument that we cannot establish that social forces play a role and that there is therefore no reason to address social norms. Even allowing women to have access to education is addressing a social norm.
The thing is, you've misunderstood my argument somewhat. I'm not really saying that biology is 100% responsible for anything. I'm not arguing that society doesn't play a role, I think society and biology both play a role in most things. My argument is that it's not possible to attribute anything solely to one of those factors or frankly even to decide how much of a role each factor plays in a causal relationship with social phenomena. Our biology shapes our behavior, our behavior shapes our societies, and our societies shape our behavior; it's all intertwined.
My point is that it is not possible to accurately attribute anything to society like the feminists do. Women lag behind men in STEM, I certainly agree that is true. Where I differ with feminists is where they believe it's attributable to social forces, and thus whether it's even a problem. Women also lag behind men in coal mining and underwater welding. The difference between most feminists and myself is that I don't think either is a problem, because I don't profess to attribute anything entirely to society in some causal sense.
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote: I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
Hope nobody minds me bumping this thread.
The thing is, you have no reliable means of measuring whether there is equality of opportunity between men and women, even if it remains your goal. If the sexes are biologically different, even to a small degree, then you have no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all.
If men and women were exactly the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, then I'd agree, disparities would be attributable to society, and we'd be right to address social norms.
Even conceding that the differences may be small, however, the fact that men and women are not the same in their interests, talents, and proclivities, makes it impossible to conclude that any disparities are due to social forces. In fact you could as easily argue that social forces are exactly a result of men and women being different.
In short, one must rule out biological differences before any argument pertaining to equality of opportunity between men and women becomes remotely compelling, and this is why most feminist explanations for social phenomena are increasingly being dismissed.
The nature of opportunity would only follow from observing results between identical groups. I think different races are close enough to identical to comment on opportunity based on results. Men and women, however, aren't close enough to identical to allow us to do this.
Erm, none of what you just said is true - that there exist extremely small biological differences between men and women doesn't prevent us in any way from studying how cultural/social factors have an impact on social/political/economical differences in how men and women are treated/live in our societies. In fact, that's exactly what gender studies (and, more broadly, social sciences) do.
I think his point is that we don't know how small that difference actually is, and that gender studies/social sciences tend to completely neglect said difference claiming it all to be caused by social constructs - without actually controlling for the impact of biology (because we don't really know how big it is).
No, he went farther than that. He said that there was "no logical ground to comment on what extent social factors explain disparities, or frankly if they do at all". There is plenty of scientific literature in social sciences studying effects of social factors. There are still some debates with respect to the role played by biological factors, but the importance of cultural factors is disputed by virtually nobody because it has already been thoroughly established.
Playing the devils advocate here: How can you establish that a predictor is causative of the outcome when you have a variable which influences both the predictor and the outcome by an unknown factor which is ENTIRELY ignored? Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that cultural norms do not spring from biology? Could the distinction be artificial?
On June 08 2014 09:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Sokrates, rather than trying to shit on me for actually bothering to answer his question, why don't you tell me exactly what he meant to ask? You proffess understand Ghostcom, despite professing not to understand what he himself was asking, so go ahead. Tell me exactly what he wanted to ask as a devils advocate. You are the one who is really obsessed over the semantics of his question. It doesn't matter one way or another what he meant to ask, because as you can see, I have happily answered OBlade. He is reasonably polite and is able to construct a logical argument. You on the other hand...
I find it hilarious how you try to play the victim since Socrates is not talking politely to you considering the shitty attitude you have had throughout the last couple of pages. You didn't even read the thread and as a consequence didn't understand a question because you missed the context. You then complain about a lack of clarity, whilst the question itself was actually perfectly clear when read in the context of the thread. Because of your laziness/ineptitude you proceed with a bunch of ad hominems, attempting to insult my intellect as well as misrepresenting what was actually written, quoting out of context and strawmanning like no tomorrow. The attitude with which you entered this thread is quite astounding and it only gets worse throughout culminating in this post of yours where you try to call out Socrates. I am thoroughly impressed by your shamelessness - I mean it should be at least a little thought-provoking that everyone who actually read the thread understood me (and twice commended me for my communication).
EDIT: Let me give you a little tip which Day[9] was actually one of the guys who presented to me some years ago: Arguing is not about being right or winning an argument. It is an exchange of ideas to reach an improved understanding of the subject for all parties involved. That is what sevencck and kwizach has done - and what do you know? It looks like they actually got somewhere just with their 4 posts in the last couple of pages.
'Arguing is not about being right or winning an argument. It is an exchange of ideas to reach an improved understanding of the subject for all parties involved.'
I really wish more people had this point of view, especially when it comes to discourse on the internet.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/stupid-man.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat23-600x500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/m2fig3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/lindy-west.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8YCJnC4.png)
