|
On April 08 2012 20:59 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote:
Okay, finished watching these videos.
It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive.
The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics.
The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths. just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy..,
yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
|
|
|
On April 08 2012 21:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 20:59 Quotidian wrote:On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote:
Okay, finished watching these videos.
It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive.
The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics.
The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths. just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy.., yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
and you say that based on what..? Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
This series was quite controversial when it was still new in Norway, and a big part of that was that the interviewees felt grossly misrepresented in some of the cases. Harald Eia also approached the interviews biased and used editing to build up under this bias.
|
On April 08 2012 11:31 nttea wrote:
Too many guys in this thread on a crusade to defame feminism, for fuck sake go read up on actual feminist ideology instead of making up your own based on girls you don't like.
Please. We know much more about feminist fallacies and its harmful consequences in legislation and society than you will ever see while blindfolded.
|
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote:
That what you call male dominated fields had an increase in female students doesn't tell us much though. For example in sweden there has been a large increase in female university students. And before you start thinking that sounds nice and equal, since a lot of people tend to think equality just means advantages for women, females been a majority of the university students in sweden for a while.
It does tell us something. For years now schools and the government has been trying to promote physics and computer science as viable career-choices for women, and it has obviously worked. You are completely right that there are more female students in general, but I don't think those numbers coincide perfectly, I believe the measures that was taken in Norway had something to do with the increase in female students in those fields, and not just that there are more female students overall. I could be wrong though, can't really back it up with any numbers.
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote:
The amount of female university students does not mean there will be a proportional increase of females in so called male dominated jobs either. Just one factor(and there are many factors) is that the fields with most males, like construction workers, waste collectors, truck drivers etc don't tend to require university degrees.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. All I'm saying is that I believe there are still stigmas present in today's society that makes it harder for women to chase certain jobs, even though the interest is there. The same applies for men in certain female-dominated fields of work as well by the way.
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote:
And because it has to be said after I brought that up, does the decrease in performance from boys in school perhaps have something to do with the measures sweden has taken when it comes to equality?
It might do, but it is a very hard question to answer, and there are a multitude of answers. I'm actually studying to become a male teacher, and the request for us is huge, especially in classes 1-10. We've discussed this in class a couple of times, without making any conclusions. A lot of researchers tend to believe the decrease in performance has something to do with less male role-models. There are (at least in Norway) a ton of female teachers in comparison to males in classes 1-10, and this might have an effect. Also, the fact that boys mature later than girls could have an effect in our school system as we have gone away from the 60s era of strict discipline, and gone over to individual responsibility and self-taught work-ethic. Boys (and I am of course generalizing here) tend to perform less overall in such environments.
|
On April 08 2012 21:31 Frigo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 11:31 nttea wrote:
Too many guys in this thread on a crusade to defame feminism, for fuck sake go read up on actual feminist ideology instead of making up your own based on girls you don't like. Please. We know much more about feminist fallacies and its harmful consequences in legislation and society than you will ever see while blindfolded.
Harmful consequences? Like what?
|
On April 08 2012 21:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 20:59 Quotidian wrote:On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote:
Okay, finished watching these videos.
It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive.
The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics.
The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths. just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy.., yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
That already happened, at least partially.
On April 08 2012 21:23 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 21:16 xM(Z wrote:On April 08 2012 20:59 Quotidian wrote:On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote:
Okay, finished watching these videos.
It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive.
The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics.
The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths. just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy.., yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money. and you say that based on what..? Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. This series was quite controversial when it was still new in Norway, and a big part of that was that the interviewees felt grossly misrepresented in some of the cases. Harald Eia also approached the interviews biased and used editing to build up under this bias.
Journalists are always more or less biased. The point is that these "scientists" did actually say these things, doesn't matter if he cut out other things they said since these are things you wouldn't want any scientist to say, ever. This has already been trialled and Eia won that. If he had edited their meaning he wouldn't have, he did however edit it so that their opinions seemed utterly ridiculous which is fair and happens all the time.
|
On April 08 2012 21:23 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 21:16 xM(Z wrote:On April 08 2012 20:59 Quotidian wrote:On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote:
Okay, finished watching these videos.
It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive.
The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics.
The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths. just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy.., yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money. and you say that based on what..? Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. This series was quite controversial when it was still new in Norway, and a big part of that was that the interviewees felt grossly misrepresented in some of the cases. Harald Eia also approached the interviews biased and used editing to build up under this bias.
well i based that on the fact that the 'non-scientists' (you know, regular norwegians) interviewed, knew that there were differences between the sexes. it's like everyone else but the scientists knew that there are fundamental differences between sexes so either they were following an agenda or were not 'real' scientists.
in either case they were at the short end of the stick.
|
I watched 2 of the episodes (gender equality and sex) and I think it's important that he challenges the popular notion that pretty much everything is based in culture. Kind of refreshing to see.
But at the same time I'm not sure that these innate differences wouldn't be possible to change by society. I think we as humans have a strong ability to counteract and learn/associate things like sex and attitudes to something completely different even if there is small predisposition towards one attitude. It's not like we are completely driven by our biology and can't choose not to act in other ways, and also find other ways rewarding.
Also for example with the higher prenatal testosterone -> lower levels of empathy / more system oriented thinking, I think it's more useful to talk about that in terms of just testosterone levels. Most of the time when looking at the gender differences men and women are pretty much the same and share a lot of variance, but the mean of one group is slightly higher. Which doesn't really tell me anything about how a person of a specific gender is apart from that people (men or women) are very different within the same group but not so much between groups. Those things are true for things like "women better at verbal, men at spatial", "men are more interested in systems, women in communications with other people", etc.
Anyway, I think we could use something like this in Sweden. Social sciences are definitely politicized and you can't talk about any differences exist whatsoever if they aren't based in culture without getting at least some angry looks. There is a lot of very strange research being done that I wouldn't even consider being research at all. Even pointing differences out at all is seen as something bad which may or may not be the case depending on the subject matter.
|
On April 08 2012 21:37 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 21:31 Frigo wrote:On April 08 2012 11:31 nttea wrote:
Too many guys in this thread on a crusade to defame feminism, for fuck sake go read up on actual feminist ideology instead of making up your own based on girls you don't like. Please. We know much more about feminist fallacies and its harmful consequences in legislation and society than you will ever see while blindfolded. Harmful consequences? Like what?
Seriously dude, just look up some men's rights webpage, like "Man Woman Myth" or "Community of the Wrongly Accused" and you'll find examples by the dozen.
To me the most disgusting consequence is that society thinks of men as disposable subhuman animals who double as scapegoats and punchbags, and legislation reflects this belief.
|
Norway28548 Posts
whoa, there's a whole pile of bs espoused here, as well as a lacking understanding of feminism in norway.
1: hjernevask, while providing a useful counterpoint to the norwegian debate, is not a scientific show. the interviews of various featured scientists were massively edited with the intention of making statements sound far more extreme than they actually were. in fact, one of the "pro-nurture-trumps-nature" advocates featured in the show, caused such an uproar that the unedited interview was also published. The unedited interview actually showed that they had removed virtually every "moderate" statement he made, quipping out snippets that made him, a representant of the "mainstream norwegian point of view", seem like an absurd extremist.
2: the nature vs nurture debate is usually pretty stupid, because people from both sides of the spectrum end up hyperboling and polarizing the debate. every sane and informed person realizes that in reality, both nature and nurture are significant factors in determining how a person develops. Yet, debates tend to feature people arguing only for nature or only for nurture - but people who argue that nurture is a non-factor will still attempt to set their children in a favourable environment for them to grow up in, and people who argue that nature is a non-factor, will normally try to procreate with a mate with a positive set of genes. hjernevask is extremely guilty in this area, and that is why the show is particularly dishonest intellectually; when scientists attempted to be moderate, their interviews were edited to such a degree that they ended up being examples of this, extremely problematic polemic polarization.
3: scandinavian countries have definitely taken political feminism to another level than what is the case for most other western countries (or any other for that matter.) but this has never been about "making the genders equal", it's been about reversing a culture that reinforces archaic gender roles - and we've also come much further with regards to achieving equal possibility for both genders. affermative action isn't an "easy" discussion though, with very good arguments favouring both sides of the debate, and it's stupid to pretend that it's a clear-cut discussion with only one possible answer. like mostly all other issues of any importance, the discussion should be about finding the best possible balance. Once again, both sides of the spectrum are very much to blame for the ridiculous turns the debate occasionally takes. now I have to go and this paragraph was pretty lackluster but man, just try to not be so bombastic in opinions and statements.
|
On April 08 2012 22:56 Frigo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 21:37 Quotidian wrote:On April 08 2012 21:31 Frigo wrote:On April 08 2012 11:31 nttea wrote:
Too many guys in this thread on a crusade to defame feminism, for fuck sake go read up on actual feminist ideology instead of making up your own based on girls you don't like. Please. We know much more about feminist fallacies and its harmful consequences in legislation and society than you will ever see while blindfolded. Harmful consequences? Like what? Seriously dude, just look up some men's rights webpage, like "Man Woman Myth" or "Community of the Wrongly Accused" and you'll find examples by the dozen. To me the most disgusting consequence is that society thinks of men as disposable subhuman animals who double as scapegoats and punchbags, and legislation reflects this belief.
So I googled "Man Woman Myth" and found their website. The very first article I was presented with is titled "Female Comedians - Why are female stand-up comedians not so funny?". The final paragraph of the article reads: "Let a woman walk a mile in his shoes, or maybe 3000 miles to represent his life, and then maybe she’ll be funny. But typically? To borrow from the mindset of all too many women: stand-up comedy needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle."
Uh-huh.
|
Yes please, completely ignore the rest of the article and jump to conclusions on your misinterpretation of the last paragraph.
|
I dislike these kinds of shows, because of their massive power in changing peoples mind while only showing a small part of the sample size to the viewer. Also there is the editing.
WTB a study or survey of Norwegian scientists in the involved fields.
|
On April 08 2012 18:45 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 12:09 shinosai wrote:
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
Was this one supposed to be a joke? You're not seriously going to suggest that women are somehow LESS regulated than men on what they wear in social occasions, are you? Just think about this hypothetical: You're going in for a job interview. What do you wear? A suit. No problem. What does a woman wear? Maybe she can wear something "vulnerable" and "open", or maybe she has to wear something more professsional - although maybe that would make her too unfeminine. It's really not clear what she should wear... but it is clear that she will be judged for whatever she does much more harshly than for your difficult decision to wear a suit. At least you know what is expected of you. You can call it a restriction, but it benefits you more than women. Did you read what you just wrote before you posted? You just agreed that men are more regulated, they can't choose they need to go with the suit. That can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. You choose to see it as a disadvantage for the girl that it gets hard for her to choose between all of her options. But it could just as well be seen as a disadvantage for the male since he gets unable to express himself through his clothing. It is the same thing with most issues feminism is raving about. Like the thing were women are expected to stay home with the kids. It is a disadvantage since then she gets less pay on the job. But at the same time men are disadvantaged since they are expected to be out earning money and thus it isn't acceptable for them to be home with the kids. If women were smart they would always take the male side and say things like "we wish to allow males to be home more with their kids" rather than "We want to force men to take their responsibility at home with the kids". I can tell you that the deal were the men are working and women are at home is not at all unquestionable in favor of males. I am certain that women wouldn't be happy if they were not allowed to stay home with the kids and the men stayed home while she were forced to work. Working isn't necessarily a privilege, just as staying home with the kids isn't. Feminists however argue that working is so much better than staying home and that males are oppressing females since they take the working role and lets her stay home. But why can't they just accept that both choices have their advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the individuals to choose what is best for them?
Men aren't more regulated, because women are much more harshly judged for their choice of clothing. Women have a "choice" but this choice is a delusion because no matter what they choose they're still doing something wrong. It appears like men are more restricted, but again, this is self-imposed for the benefit of men.
As far as the job issue, it wasn't until recently that you even had maternity leave. Anyways, if women are expected to stay at home once they have kids and men are expected to work, economically men must logically be advantaged, no matter how you try to spin it. It SHOULD be a choice to stay at home or work - but right now the choice is made for you. Feminists don't argue that men should be forced to be stay at home dads, but it doesn't make much sense that women must be the caretakers. Some argue that men and women should equally take share in child raising, which means that yes, men could get maternity leave, too. And this happens in Europe. How awful.
|
I'm amazed that these Norwegian sociologists were claiming that sexual orientation isn't innate. That's just crazy. I thought it was universal knowledge by now that people are born gay, that it's not a choice, and yet these people are saying that a person can choose or change their sexual orientation. That's the same belief as the nutjobs who run those Christian orientation reassignment camps. If they believe that then the "brainwashing" is worse than I thought.
I can't wait to get to the episode on race. That will certainly be the most controversial, since this data on gender and intelligence is already widely known, while the possibility of racial differences is never even touched out of fear.
|
On April 08 2012 06:00 sunprince wrote:
Considering that Norway is a feminist stronghold, I'm not surprised that social science there (particularly gender studies) is dominated by ideology rather than science.
Take it easy, one day you will get a girlfriend as well  Just keep on tryin'!
User was warned for this post
|
Although feminism is based off of the belief that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men, the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women. I think this idea is entirely reasonable and very poignant. Sex discrimination was until very recently common in most countries. For example, in the United States, many women could not obtain credit cards, make wills, or own property without the consent of a husband in the 1970's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Strike_for_Equality#Reactions_and_media_coverage)
If people attempt to give men and women unequal rights, they are not feminist. They are sexist. Radical feminists, however, are feminists that intend to produce equal rights for both men and women but use radical means to do so that might have unintended consequences. This debate seems to consider feminism as a movement that aggressively promotes the rights of women and discards the rights of men. If that movement is in fact taking place, it is a sexist, not a feminist, movement.
It seems like the people in this thread are targeting feminism without understanding what feminism is. Feminism may involve affirmative action, but its ultimate goal is to achieve equality. Affirmative action with a long-term goal of giving more rights to females than males, or vice versa, is sexism.
|
I found very interesting the chapter about shaping children's habits through parenthood, because apparently most of all is determined by genetics. I have an aunt, she is a kindergarden teacher that has done research in environnment shaping little kids intelligence, all her research showed how 'everything' was the environnment and dumb excercises to stimulate the brain, etc, she kinda did these things on me when I was in kindergarden age, I learned to do the two basic math operations (both my parents are engineers) and learned to speak at a very young age, she also did these excercises with my cousins and what not, some were brighter than others... anyways now she has a 2 year old child, and the kid is just not too bright, he cannot pronounce 1 word and well my aunt is all worried because all her excercises have failed. I had a conversation with her about it telling her it was mostly genetic and that if her kid doesn't speak it's no problem he'll learn eventually. I think this is important for parents to know, because like my aunt a lot of people want to have 'superchildren' in this age where most people have 1 or 2 childs and it's just not like that, people should leave kids alone a little more instead of being on their backs all the time.
|
The best way to resolve the nurture vs nature debate for good is to simply begin cloning humans. The ethical objections are based on naturalistic fallacies and religious dogma, anyways, so let's get started right now and resolve this once and for all. Besides, who doesn't want a little clone of themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
