EPT30 Days of Sexism - Alanah Pearce - Page 51
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On May 03 2013 22:07 Xaddy wrote: No I did not watch the video. It is not proof of anything, because it is not science. Even the interviewees are subjected to selection bias by the interviewer, and it also carries a lot of confirmation bias. But I'll indulge anyway. Evolutionary biologists commenting on this topic are not commenting on evolutionary biology, they're commenting on evolutionary psychology (psychology being the study of behaviour). Granted, psychology does have a little bit to do with biology, but still the field of study is behaviour. Naturally they will be more inclined to find a biological explanation to any phenomenon, especially psychological phenomenon which already lends itself to accept biology. If you think the tools evolutionary biologists use are in any way similar to the tools a microbiologist uses just because they're "natural sciences" you're wrong. Evolutionary biology is based on reasoning and logic, using examples from today to explain yesterday inductively. In that way, they're tools are a lot more like the "unnatural sciences" or whatever you want to call them. They're not necessarily wrong, because we cannot ever study the phenomenon firsthand, since we weren't there. But the core of the matter is 1) that they're looking at norms (wide spread behaviours) today and explain them by assuming the norms were the same way-back-when. And after supposing this 2) they claim that it must be biological in nature. Both of these are not very good science. I have read papers by evolutionary psychologists, they're pretty suppositional. I accept that they are, in that particular field they have to be. But that is also why some people don't take the discipline very seriously. Sociology and social-constructivism is simply a much more parsimonious and generalizable explanation. So you write about 4 paragraphs about something you haven't seen or even bother to watch and then you'll critizise the reporter for his methods. double standard? Your criticism is very general and only partially applicable for the arguments given by the scientists. I didn't have the impression they used this very approach when they showed the relation between the level of testosteron and likeliness to choose "technical" toys at young age (~4 y.o. iirc). Bottom line of the video may be that the gender scientists stated that there exists no biological difference between men and women and everything is "socially constructed". Then the reporter went to some biologists, psychologists etc. and they presented evidence that this is not true. So the question is: Do you want to defend the gender scientists with their statement that every difference between men and women is socially constructed? Or do you agree that this particular set of scientists is not that scientific at all? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
1) She equates internet comments from troll posters to sexual harassment at the work place. This is bullshit. There is a huge difference in personal impact between receiving sexually suggestive posts from anonymous assholes and having to deal with a coworker or supervisor that you know who harasses you at work (both with comments and touching/assault). I have represented numerous women who have had to deal with the latter, and that is a legitimately shitty situation. What Pearce is complaining about is innocuous by comparison, which leads to my next point.... 2) She has completely the wrong attitude about her appearance and her concerns about how people (particularly anonymous posters) perceive her. She is fortunate to be attractive. There are tons of women who would kill to get the attention that she gets. There is no doubt that her beauty has opened all sorts of doors for her. I suspect that she would not be where she is now if she looked like Janet Reno. I don't know whether she is honest about these facts, but she should have at least touched upon them in her article. Her larger arguments (which do have some merit) are rather lost in her hollow complaints of "the burdens of being cute." | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 03 2013 21:38 Xaddy wrote: I have only studied gender studies in swedish, and sweden is one of the leading countries in this discipline so some of the best and most interesting studies are in swedish. So, I could give some reading tips, but that's just in swedish. If you are interested the Statistics Swedish (Statistiska Centralbyrån) has a biannual book on gendered statistics called "På tal om kvinnor och män" which includes almost all statistics used in gender equality debates in the country, it is really good, it has all kinds of statistics. It would require a severely delusional person to say the country is gender equal after reading it. And it is government funded and obligated to not offer any analysis of their statistics, you can draw your own conclusions. I'm not asking you to substantiate your arguments. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I'm just advising you that arguments like this on TL are best resolved by experienced people providing a higher level of debate. To be honest, linking swedish studies would at least be a start. I was called out on a legal point recently and provided a couple of articles and a case, that shut him up instantly. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On May 03 2013 23:08 xDaunt wrote: Here are the two problems that I have with Pearce's article: You nailed it buddy. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 03 2013 23:08 xDaunt wrote: Here are the two problems that I have with Pearce's article: 1) She equates internet comments from troll posters to sexual harassment at the work place. This is bullshit. There is a huge difference in personal impact between receiving sexually suggestive posts from anonymous assholes and having to deal with a coworker or supervisor that you know who harasses you at work (both with comments and touching/assault). I have represented numerous women who have had to deal with the latter, and that is a legitimately shitty situation. What Pearce is complaining about is innocuous by comparison, which leads to my next point.... 2) She has completely the wrong attitude about her appearance and her concerns about how people (particularly anonymous posters) perceive her. She is fortunate to be attractive. There are tons of women who would kill to get the attention that she gets. There is no doubt that her beauty has opened all sorts of doors for her. I suspect that she would not be where she is now if she looked like Janet Reno. I don't know whether she is honest about these facts, but she should have at least touched upon them in her article. Her larger arguments (which do have some merit) are rather lost in her hollow complaints of "the burdens of being cute." You shut up. Historically positive traits ARE a burden, haven't you ever read Harrison Burgeron? Attractiveness is a social Construct. Stop treating her like a pretty girl. Just because you want to project YOUR desires and judgments of her attractiveness on her, doesn't give you the right to make her feel uncomfortable. + Show Spoiler + Sarcasm* Seriously though, I take less issue with the article and more with the response of both her detractors and her defenders. Respectively: Saying, "Grow a thicker skin" doesn't address people who are legitimately being a dick to the girl. Being courteous is a boon. On the other hand, crying sexism and targeting some non-existent conceptual aggregation of peoples actions and treating it like it's something to be "fought" is nothing short of insanity. | ||
|
FrogOfWar
Germany1406 Posts
On May 03 2013 23:22 Kimaker wrote: You shut up. Historically positive traits ARE a burden, haven't you ever read Harrison Burgeron? Attractiveness is a social Construct. Stop treating her like a pretty girl. Just because you want to project YOUR desires and judgments of her attractiveness on her, doesn't give you the right to make her feel uncomfortable. + Show Spoiler + Sarcasm* Seriously though, I take less issue with the article and more with the response of both her detractors and her defenders. Respectively: Saying, "Grow a thicker skin" doesn't address people who are legitimately being a dick to the girl. Being courteous is a boon. On the other hand, crying sexism and targeting some non-existent conceptual aggregation of peoples actions and treating it like it's something to be "fought" is nothing short of insanity. "Nothing short of insanity", I'm glad that you weigh your words so carefully. What the hell is a "non-existent conceptual aggregation of peoples actions" supposed to be? The conceptual aggregation obviously exists, or otherwise you weren't able to attack it. The people and their actions also exist. So what you are saying is that these people or their actions are not real aggregations because they act individually? A term such as "crime" arguably places a much wider variety of actions in one and the same category than "sexism". Does it follow that crime is not something to be fought? Are you generally against abstractions? (Even though "abstractions" is also an abstraction, d'oh.) | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
GTFO My wife watches 30 different lets players (all male), and constantly tells me of shit and drama that goes down all the time on their streams/forums. The internet is full of trolls, if you can't handle it you shouldn't make it your career. | ||
|
Xaddy
Sweden41 Posts
On May 03 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote: Yep, it is general, because I can't possible comment on a humour shows attempts at trying to confirm an opinion. And I did watch a little. Some is even very poorly translated. I wanted to make comments on the scientific theory behind it.So you write about 4 paragraphs about something you haven't seen or even bother to watch and then you'll critizise the reporter for his methods. double standard? Your criticism is very general and only partially applicable for the arguments given by the scientists. Bottom line of the video may be that the gender scientists stated that there exists no biological difference between men and women and everything is "socially constructed". Then the reporter went to some biologists, psychologists etc. and they presented evidence that this is not true. Is that evidence like this: "I didn't have the impression they used this very approach when they showed the relation between the level of testosteron and likeliness to choose "technical" toys at young age (~4 y.o. iirc)."? It is a prime example of grasping at a biological explanation. Did you also know that testosteron increases in test subjects if they are in proximity to a rifle? This only occurs if we associate the rifle with violence, in this experiment hunters did not get this spike of testosteron. A way more suitable explanation is that testosteron increases in the prescence of "manly (violent)" stimulus, rather than vice versa. So first, we learn gendered behaviour and then (simultaneously) our body reacts to it and we act on it. The causation chain looks like this (Social learning) -> (Biological reaction + Behaviour). So the question is: Do you want to defend the gender scientists with their statement that every difference between men and women is socially constructed? Or do you agree that this particular set of scientists is not that scientific at all? Not every difference. And no trait is exclusively determined by social factors, neither by biological factors. It is stupid to deal in absolutes. Think about body size. Men are normally bigger built than women. This is biological, but it could cause social differences. For instance men might be more inclined to use violence as a tool than women, because they have bigger bodies. This is an interaction which is part biological and part psychological. And when pop science interviews people with opposing views they normally interview people with a black-and-white view so that it's more easy to understand their differences. As I said, I didn't watch it, but I would not be surprised if both parties stuck to an "only biological" respectively an "only social" view and thus both parties are stupid or were made to look stupid. It is obvious to me, though, that social constructionism explain the world in way better than biological essentialism (if I was forced to choose). | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
Also I find her only focusing on the female/woman perspective to be very sexist. Not only that, I'm insulted by her portrayal that random, anonymous comments made on the internet are somehow important enough to focus this much time on. I also think it's funny that she automatically assumes the comments are all from men/boys/males, when most if not all never disclose their gender, or how they identify. Anyone, who publicly writes something, says something in any medium or format is subject to criticism. | ||
Falling
Canada11387 Posts
| ||
| ||
